The High Court dismissed the civil revision. It upheld the impugned order observing that the respondent's counter-claim for ejectment must be decided in the pending suit even though he had issued a notice under Section 106.
The civil revision was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Civil Revision No.1678 of 2009
Decided on : March 26, 2009
Satpal Singh
... Petitioner
VERSUS
Harbhajan Singh
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Navjeet Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
- A.N.JINDAL, J.
Having scrutinised the impugned order dated 15.1.2003, it is revealed that the defendant – respondent has admitted tenancy of the plaintiff – petitioner, yet he has set up the counter-claim for ejectment of the shop on the ground that he has already issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 25.9.2006. In the circumstances, the Trial Court has taken a correct view while observing that the counter-claim is to be decided in the pending suit.
No grounds to interfere.
Dismissed.
March 26, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly held that the respondent's counter-claim for ejectment should be decided in the pending suit despite the respondent setting up a notice under Section 106.
Whether there are grounds for interfering with the impugned order dated 15.1.2003.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satpal Singh
Harbhajan Singh
A.N.Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
