Pirbhu v. Mehtab Singh and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
This Second Appeal involved the validity of a demolition of a house despite a court injunction. The High Court held that revenue orders did not authorize demolition and restored the trial court decree while discharging procedural mandates on second appeals under CPC Section 100.
What did the court decide?
Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court set aside; judgment and decree of the trial Court restored.
What the court decided
RSA No.1866 of 2007
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1866 of 2007 Date of Decision.22.01.2018
Pirbhu s/o Kabul Singh
......Appellant
Vs
Mehtab Singh and others ........Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents violated the injunction order by demolishing the house considering the revenue authorities did not direct demolition.
Whether the decision in Ganpat is sustainable in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Pankajakshi regarding Section 100 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Pirbhu s/o Kabul Singh
- respondent
Mehtab Singh
Coram
AMIT RAWAL
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Punjab & Haryana HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- RSA/1866/2007
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court