This court dismissed the second appeal summarily against a judgment in an eviction suit. The High Court found no force or substantial question of law involved regarding the lower courts' findings on unauthorized construction and admissibility of evidence.
Second appeal, as well as stay and urgency applications, dismissed summarily.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Second Appeal No. 17 of 2012
District Dehradun
……………. Appellants/defendants
Versus
Naushad Ahmad
Receiver, R/o 44, Gandhi Road, Dehradun District Dehradun
…………… Respondent/Plaintiff
Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, present for the defendants/appellants. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, present for the plaintiff/respondent.
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant,J.
Heard.
2
15.03.2001 passed by the trial court (Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, V, Dehradun) in Original Suit No. 414 of 94.
3
photo copy of counter foil produced by the landlord was not admissible in evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent contended that the photo copy of the receipt issued to the defendants (appellants), was proved before the trial court by producing original counter foil in the court as such the courts below did not commit any error of law in appreciating.
Parul
Jaleel Lohar S/o Late Aziz Ahmad and others
Naushad Ahmad
Prafulla C. Pant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
