Dismissed

Punjab Waqf Board v. Naresh Khosla and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2018RSA/3575/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an additional oral application to condone a 28-day delay in filing the appeal. The principal appeal against the Lower Appellate Court's order granting an injunction was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Lower Appellate Court judgment affirmed. Additional application for condonation of delay allowed.

Punjab Waqf Board Vs Naresh Khosla… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.3575 of 2016 (O&M) {1}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA No.3575 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:04.12.2018

Punjab Wakf Board

... Appellants

Vs.

Naresh Khosla and others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present:Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶12

C.M.No.9345-C of 2016

¶13

For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands allowed.

¶14

RSA No.3575 of 2016 (O&M)

¶15

The Wakf Board - defendants are aggrieved of the judgment and decree rendered by the Lower Appellate Court granting the injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs which was rejected by the trial Court.

¶16

The respondent-plaintiffs claimed the injunction of forcible interference and dispossession at the hands of the Wakf Board being lessee. The defendants opposed the suit by denying the plaintiffs to be lessees but admitted Sumitra Devi@ Savitri Devi, mother of the plaintiffs, to be lessee.

¶17

SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.06 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

RSA No.3575 of 2016 (O&M) {2}

¶19

Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendants submitted that no doubt, the Lower Appellate Court had given the liberty to the appellant-defendants to seek ejectment in accordance with law but the reference of the applicability of Local Act is neither here nor there as parties to lis, if at all treated to be as lessees is governed by the terms and conditions of Punjab Wakf Act, 1995

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, appraised the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and of the view that injunction granted is most innocuous but the reference of the applicability of Local Act was only in the context of the judgment and cannot be construed as an expression of opinion regarding its applicability in the contemplated proceedings as they are as obiter.

¶21

With the aforementioned observations, the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.

¶22

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
December 04, 2018
savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶23

SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.06 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Punjab Waqf Board v. Naresh Khosla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab Waqf Board v. Naresh Khosla 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

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Malkiat Singh & Anr. Vs Sdo, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Chhaju Singh Vs Satyawan and Ors.

Atma Singh Vs Surinderpal Sood & Ors.

Hem Raj Garg Vs Punjab Relief Society and Anr.

Inder Singh Vs Teja Singh and Ors.