Dismissed

Saroj Rani v. Raj Dulari and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Mar 2011CR/1821/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Revision dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner to assess a property's value. The court held valuation was unnecessary as the execution court had already determined which party would receive a partitioned shop.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for appointment of the petitioner to appoint a Local Commissioner to be dismissed.

Saroj Rani Vs Raj Dulari and Anr. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Civil Revision No.1821 of 2011 (O&M).

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

...

¶5

Date of Decision: March 15, 2011.

¶6

Civil Revision No.1821 of 2011 (O&M).

Smt. Saroj Rani

... Petitioner.

VERSUS

Smt.Raj Dulari and another ... Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶16

¶17

MOHINDER PAL, J.

¶18

The defendant-respondent is aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court whereby her prayer for getting assessment of value of the shop in question by appointing a technical person as Local Commissioner has been declined.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not see any reason warranting

¶20

-2-

¶21

Civil Revision No.1821 of 2011 (O&M).

¶22

interference in the impugned order passed by the trial Judge. Plaintiff-respondent Smt.Raj Dulari and defendant-petitioner Smt. Saroj Rani are the daughters-in-law of Durga Dass. The suit was filed by plaintiff Smt.Raj Kumari for separate possession after partition of the shop in question. After preliminary decree had been passed, a Local Commissioner was appointed. The Local Commissioner submitted his report that the shop in question could be partitioned and two independent shops could be carved out. The plaintiff-respondent had made a statement that she was ready to accept any side of the two shops to be carved out after partition. As such, when the shop in dispute was not to be sold, there was no question of appointing any Local Commissioner in assessing the value thereof. The executing Court was justified in declining the prayer of the defendant-petitioner in this regard.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE

¶25

March 15, 2011. ak

Saroj Rani v. Raj Dulari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Rani v. Raj Dulari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manbhawati and Ors. Vs Chotte Lal and Anr.

Joginder Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sohan Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Others

Savita and Others Vs Satish Kumar and Others

Manmohan Singh & Anr. Vs Harbans Singh & Ors.

(O&M) Devi Dayal Vs Mihan and Ors.