Revision filed to impugn order allowing leave to defend. High Court disposed of petition, directing trial court to conclude eviction trial within 06 months and restricting adjournments to ensure speedy disposal.
Direction to trial court to conclude eviction trial within 06 months; no adjournments unless granted.
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.
$~29
SURAJ PRAKASH TANWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M. K. Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Ms. Vishakha Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocates
versus
RAMESH CHAND .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN O R D E R % 16.08.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2024 at 11:18:10
the respondent has raised certain triable issues in the application for leave to defend.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
AUGUST 16, 2024 N/abk/ak
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2024 at 11:18:10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the eviction trial should be concluded within 06 months regarding the age of the petitioner.
Whether the application to quash the order allowing leave to defend should be disposed of.
Whether the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Suraj Prakash Tanwar
Ramesh Chand
Sudhir Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
