REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Anjali Varshney Appellant

V/S

Rajendra Varshney And Another Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

D N BANERJI VS. P R MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
WARYAM SINGH VS. AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA NATH BORA LIKHIRAM COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS ASSAM RAFIULLAH KHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS ASSAM:BHANURAM PAGU:BHANURAM PEGU:AMULYA PRASAD CHALIHA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQIM [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI VS. PRATAPSING MOHANSINGH PARDESHI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHUSHAN VS. BENI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KASHINATH RAVAT VS. VINAYAK N JOSHI [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRABAI BHAUSAHEB KEVATE VS. RAICHAND DHANRAJ LUNJA [REFERRED TO]
AJAIB SINGH VS. SIRHIND CO OPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HIMMAT SINGH CHAHAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN AMBA PRASAD AGNIHOTRI VS. BHASKAR BALWANT AHER DEAD [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. I O B STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJENDRA PRABHU [REFERRED TO]
ESTRALLA RUBBER VS. DASS ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
OUSEPH MATHAI VS. M ABDUL KHADIR [REFERRED TO]
SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA JAIN AIRWAYS LTD. VS. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 12.7.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, District Aligarh in Original Suit No.1555 of 2009 (Rajendra Varshney vs. Anjali Varshney and others) by which he has accepted the application (99Ka) for amendment in the suit on the cost of Rs.500/- and the order dated 24.5.2017 passed by the District Judge, Aligarh whereby he has dismissed the Civil Appeal No.59 of 2016 (Smt. Anjali Varshney vs. Rajendra Varshney and others) and affirmed the order of the lower court dated 12.7.2016.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned orders so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.?

Click here to view full judgment.

ANJALI VARSHNEY Vs. RAJENDRA VARSHNEY AND ANOTHER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address