Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARVANJIT SINGH versus DARSHANA RANI ALIAS DARSHANA KUMARI AND

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sarvanjit Singh v. Darshana Rani alias Darshana Kumari and - CR-874-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 742 (14 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

C.R. No.874 of 2006

Date of Decision:20.2.2006

Sarvanjit Singh

Vs.

Darshana Rani alias Darshana Kumari and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present:- Shri J.S.Verka, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

Vide order under challenge, application of respondent No.1 to amend her plaint was allowed. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that alleged power of attorney, if any, in favour of respondent No.2 allegedly executed by her, be declared a fabricated document. It was further stated by her that if any transaction has been executed on the basis of abovesaid power of attorney, the same be also declared null and void. In written statement filed by defendant No.3, it was stated that he had become owner of the property in dispute, on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour, by attorney of the respondent No.1. At that stage, respondent No.1 moved an application for amendment of her plaint to lay challenge to the sale deed referred to above. It is specifically noticed by the Court below that execution of the sale deed, in favour of the petitioner was not in the notice of respondent No.1 when she filed her suit and necessity to amend the plaint has arisen, only after filing of the written statement wherein C.R. No.874 of 2006 [2]

factum of sale deed was mentioned. This Court feels that order passed is perfectly justified. Suit is at the initial stage and in allowing amendment of the plaint, Court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity.

Ratio of the judgment in Mir Nivamath Ali Khan Vs.

Commerial and Industrial Bank Ltd. And others, AIR 1969 Andhra Pradesh 294 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Dismissed.

February 20, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )

renu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.