Madan Lal S/O Shri Chhitarmal Vs Lalaram S/O Shri Bhiwaram

Learned counsel for appellant submits that on the basis of agreement dated 20.01.2016, the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was instituted by appellant-plaintiff on 28.11.2018. Both courts have rejected the suit considering its nature of injunction to be triable by the revenue Court.

¶16

Counsel for appellant submits that the appellant-plaintiff intends to institute a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.01.2016 and seeks liberty to adjust the period passed in the present litigation under Section 14 of the

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CSA-323/2019]

¶19

Limitation Act as well as, with the aforesaid liberty, seeks

¶20

permission to withdraw this second appeal.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

In the given facts and circumstances, the second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶23

Record of courts below be sent back.

¶24

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶25

SACHIN /94

Madan Lal S/O Shri Chhitarmal v. Lalaram S/O Shri Bhiwaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal S/O Shri Chhitarmal v. Lalaram S/O Shri Bhiwaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariram S/O Late Shri Suganchand Saini Vs Bajrang Sharan S/O Late Shri Deendayal Sharan Chaudhary

Mumtaj Hussain Vs Nagar Palika Kekari Thr Administration

Ram Singh Bhati Vs Rajender Singh and Ors.

Navratan Lal Sharma Vs Radha Mohan Sharma and Another

Phool Singh Vs Prakash Chand and Others

Syed Mohammad Afaq and Ors. Vs Ghosia Biwi and Ors.