Babu Singh & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal concerning property possession and a permanent injunction, the Delhi High Court held no substantial question of law arose. Relying on prior judgments and concurrent findings by lower courts regarding the Local Commissioner's report, the court declined the appeal.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~67
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- RSA 57/2019 & CM APPL. 12658-12662/2019 BABU SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Adv.
versus
PRADEEP KUMAR ..... Respondent Through None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA O R D E R % 18.03.2019
CM APPL. 12660/2019, CM APPL. 12661/2019 & CM APPL. 12662/2019
Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications are disposed of.
RSA 57/2019 & CM APPL. 12658/2019 & CM APPL. 12659/2019
The present is a regular second appeal. Alongwith the same is an application seeking condonation of delay of 137 days in filing the appeal. The reasons explained therein do not suffice to bring forth any sufficient facts to condone the delay of 137 days in filing the appeal in as much as it has been stated that it was in the month of September, 2018 when the appellants enquired about the case from the erstwhile counsel who informed the appellants that a judgment dated 10.07.2018 had been passed in the case whereby the first appeal filed by the appellants/defendants was dismissed RSA 57/2019 page 1 of 11
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial questions of law arise in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC given concurrent findings of fact by lower courts and lack of objections to the Local Commissioner's report.
Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence or set aside findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Babu Singh & Anr.
- respondent
Pradeep Kumar
Coram
Anu Malhotra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court