Dismissed

M/S Capsugel Health Care Ltd. v. Harish and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2018RSA/3164/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Punjab and Haryana, allowed CM application RSA No.3164 of 2016 (O&M) condoning a 9-day delay in filing the appeal. The court found no perversity in the lower appellate court's order dismissing the plaintiff's suit and setting aside the trial court's decree. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 9 days in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was dismissed.

M/S Capsugel Health Care Ltd. Vs Harish and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

#1#

¶2

RSA No.3164 of 2016 (O&M)

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.3164 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Order: 22.11.2018

¶5

M/s CAPSUGEL Health Care Pvt Ltd

....Appellant

Versus

Harish and Ors.

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL, J (ORAL)

¶13

CM No.8479-C of 2016

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶15

RSA No.3164 of 2016

¶16

Appellant-defendant No.5 is aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2015 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Rewari whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, has been set aside.

¶17

The short point involved in the present case is whether the status of the appellant-defendant No.5, who had purchased the land during the pendency of the suit having been put into specific portion of the possession would be of a co-sharer and injunction granted to the plaintiff finding the possession to be exclusive is sustainable or not. Jamabandi (Ex.P.8) reflects that the common ancestor Balbir Singh was shown to be in MANOJ KUMAR 2018.12.11 08:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

#2#

¶19

RSA No.3164 of 2016 (O&M)

¶20

exclusive possession since 1999-2000, thus in such circumstances, vide Ex.P.7 during the course of arguments in the suit filed by the plaintiff against Mahipal, in which present respondent-plaintiff was arrayed as defendant No.5 had made a joint statement regarding no objection qua sale of agricultural land to defendant No.1 from whom other defendants had derived the interest to sell the specific portion.

¶21

While finding exclusive possession of the plaintiff, learned lower Appellate Court has rightly granted the injunction. Remedy for the co-sharers would be to seek partition for determination of share and consequential possession.

¶22

I do not find any perversity or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by lower Appellate Court.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

November 22, 2018 (AMIT RAWAL) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶25

MANOJ KUMAR 2018.12.11 08:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Capsugel Health Care Ltd. v. Harish and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Capsugel Health Care Ltd. v. Harish and Ors.

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

Raj Kumari Vs Kamla Devi

M/S Master Bhatti & Sons Vs Daljit Singh

Rupinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sukhdev Singh and Ors.

Satpal Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Panmeshwari and Another Vs Jaipal

Pritam Singh Vs Financial Commissioner & Ors.