REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MOHANLAL Appellant

V/S

DARBARILAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HARGOBIND KISHAN CHAND V. HAKIM SINGH AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
KANCHANMALAI PATHAR V. SHAHAJI RAJAH SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL KARELAL V. BARE [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDENT COURT OF WARDS V. RAJ PUROHIT GOPI KRISHANJI [REFERRED TO]
TOPANMAL CHHOTAMAL VS. KUNDOMAL GANGARAM [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS VS. SHRISHAILAPPA [REFERRED TO]
BHAVAN VAJA VS. SOLANKI HANUJI KHODAJI MANSANG [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQIM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. HARISHCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
ACHUTANANDA BAIDYA VS. PRAFULLYA KUMAR GAYEN [REFERRED TO]
ARVAPALLI RAMRAO VS. KANUMARLAPUDI RANGANAYAKULU [REFERRED TO]
CHET RAM VS. AMIN LAL [REFERRED TO]
PRAYAGDAS SHANKERLAL MARWADI AND ANOTHER VS. MT. INDIRABAI W/O. VINAYAKRAO HARKARE AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
Indirabai VS. Anokhchand [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by Decree-Holders, against the Order dated 29-4-1992, passed by Shri R. G. Ghatiya, IInd Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in Civil Revision No. 69/1980, whereby the Revision filed by Respondent No. 1/judgment-debtor, has been allowed, consequently the Execution, filed by Petitioners has been rejected.

(2.) WHILE considering the facts of this case, I am reminded of a judgment of Privy Council, reported in Volume-XIV-1871-2-Moores Indian Appeals, Page-605, The General Manager of Raj Darbhanga v. Maharaja Coomar Ramput Singh in which, Their Lordships have held that

(3.) SIMILARLY, Lahore High Court, while considering the observation of Privy Council, has held elegantly in its judgment reported in AIR 1926 Lahore 110, Hargobind Kishan Chand v. Hakim Singh and Co.

Click here to view full judgment.

MOHANLAL Vs. DARBARILAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address