Sanjay Kumar Modi and Another v. Udairaj and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal admitted on three substantial questions of law concerning validity of a decree passed without a guardian for a minor and findings of fraud and collusion. Notice issued to respondents, lower court record summoned, and parties directed to maintain status quo until next listing.
What did the court decide?
Appeal admitted on substantial questions of law; notice to respondents no.2 and 3; lower court record summoned; parties to maintain status quo.
What the court decided
Court No. - 4
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 189 of 2024
Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Modi And Another Respondent :- Udairaj And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Kumar,Hari Anuj Bahadur Sinha,Satish Gulati,Sudeep Kumar,Yogeeta Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Shyam Mohan Pradhan,Brijesh Kumar,Utkarsh Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard, Shri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Shreyash Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The matter was already heard on previous occasion.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
(1) Whether the first appellate court while upsetting the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Suit No.134 of 2015 and Regular Suit No.163 of 2014 was justified in reading the words "Collusive" and "Fraud" in restrictive sense by taking the effect of such fraud and conclusiveness from the date of filing of the Regular Suit No.123 of 2005?
(2) Whether the decree passed in Regular Suit No.123 of 2005 could be a valid decree in the eyes of law in view of the provisions contained under Order 32 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the decree in Regular Suit No.123 of 2005 has been passed without appointment of guardian of minor Reshu Gupta?
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Was the first appellate court justified in reading 'collusive' and 'fraud' restrictively with effect from the filing of Regular Suit No.123 of 2005?
Is the decree in Regular Suit No.123 of 2005 valid given it was passed without appointing a guardian for minor Reshu Gupta under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC?
Was Suit No.123 of 2005 decreed in violation of the Evidence Act by appreciating evidence contrary to pleadings?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sanjay Kumar Modi And Another
- respondent
Udairaj
- respondent
Respondents Others (including respondents no.2 and 3)
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- SAPL/189/2024
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court