Dismissed

Smt. Urmila Devi v. Smt. Prabha Sharma

Patna HC10 Oct 2012C.R./100/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision was dismissed. The High Court held that the eviction decree below, based on the plaintiff's personal requirement and lack of alternative accommodation, did not warrant interference as delivery of possession had already taken place.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision application was dismissed with liberty to the judgment-debtor to pursue the matter regarding missing articles in the court below.

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs Smt. Prabha Sharma — Partition | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.100 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Smt. Urmila Devi W/O Sri Satish Chandra Prasad Resident Of Flat No. 283, Defence Colony, Kanbarbah, Patna, P.O- Lohiya Nagar, P.S- Kankarbagh, District- Panta-20

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶4

Smt. Prabha Sharma W/O Shri Nawal Kishore Sharma Resident Of VillageChoksaid (Loma), P.S- Barand, P.O- Raja Pakar, District- Vaishali, Present Redieing In Shanti Dham Apartment, Flat -1A, Main Road, Kankarbagh, Patna, Behind State Bank of India, P.S- Kankarbagh, P.O- Lohiya Nagar, District- Panta-20

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶6

02. 10-10-2012 Heard Mr. Sanjay Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the decree holder-plaintiff.

¶7

This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 16.03.2012 passed by learned Munsif-III, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 21 of 2011, whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff requiring the defendant-petitioner to vacate the premises. The suit property in question is Flat No. 283 situated at Mohalla- Lohia Nagar, Defence Colony, Block No. 71, Ward No. 23, P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna.

¶8

Following the judgment and decree passed in the Eviction Suit, an Execution Case was filed by the decree holder giving rise to Execution Case No. 10 of 2012. It is stated that by order dated

¶9

Patna High Court C.R. No.100 of 2012 (2) dt.10-10-2012

¶10

¶11

17.09.2012 the executing court has directed delivery of possession of the house in favour of the decree holder by breaking open the lock of the premises and following which, the deliver was handed over to the decree holder on 01.10.2012.

¶12

The suit in question had been filed, inter alia, on grounds of personal requirement. The issues having been framed by the trial court, the trial court while considering the issue of personal requirement as discussed in paragraph-9 of the impugned judgment has decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff taking note of the evidence that the plaintiff did not have any alternative accommodation in Patna for residence. The learned trial court even taking note of the admission of the defendant-petitioner that the suit premises was too small for being shared, besides has hold that the requirement of the plaintiff would not be satisfied by partial eviction.

¶13

Having considered the evidence on record and having decided the issue in the backdrop of the evidence led by the contesting parties, the judgment and decree impugned has been passed which does not warrant any interference. As in consequence of the judgment and decree the delivery of possession has taken place, nothing further survives in the present proceedings. As a consequence, this Civil Revision application is

¶14

Patna High Court C.R. No.100 of 2012 (2) dt.10-10-2012

¶15

¶16

dismissed.

¶17

As regarding the dispute raised by the judgment debtor in relation to the articles, as nothing specific has been mentioned even before this Court as to the missing articles and it is admitted by the judgment debtor himself that he has preferred an application in this regard before the Court below, he shall be at liberty to pursue the same before the court concerned which shall

¶18

be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶19

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶20

S.Sb/-

Smt. Urmila Devi v. Smt. Prabha Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Urmila Devi v. Smt. Prabha Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Vs Birendra Kumar Singh and Ors.

Ghan Shyam Kumar Thakur Vs Udai Shankar Thakur and Ors.

Reshma Devi and Ors. Vs Rajdeo Sah

Dipak Kumar Gupta Vs Smt.Priti Gupta @ Priti Raj and

Vikas Kumar Singh Vs Om Prakash Mishra

Shyam Kumar Singh Vs Sita Singh and Ors.