REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MIRA BANIK Appellant

V/S

SMITA BHATTACHARYYA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAJ KAPOOR VS. CIVIL JUDGE,KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEVI VS. CIVIL JUDGE,FARRUKHABAD [REFERRED TO]
BADRUDDIN AND PARTY VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
DAYA RAM VS. 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,MIRZAPUR [REFERRED TO]
GULAB CHANDRA VS. MUNSIF WEST,ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. SYED AHMAD ISHAQUE [REFERRED TO]
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]
BABHUTMAL RAICHAND OSWAL VS. LAXMIBAI R TARTA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
NATWAR TEXTILE PROCESSORS PVT LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DARSHNA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. KAMLA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
AMITABH BACHCHAN CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MAHILA JAGRAN MANCH [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL CHAND GUPTA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH MALIK VS. MUNSIF MAGISTRATE WEST ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
ARUN LATA VS. CIVIL JUDGE BULANDSHAHAR [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA DEVI VS. VIITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
GEETA PUMP PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA JAIN AIRWAYS LTD. VS. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal will be heard. No notice need be issued. Records need not be called for. In Re: CAN 5872 of 2003 When the application for interim order was taken up, Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel for the respondents, appears and opposes the grant of interim order. Both Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Chatterjee, appearing for the respondents had made their respective submission on the application. Virtually both have addressed the Court on the merits of the appeal itself. Therefore, by consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list for hearing and is taken up for hearing and is disposed of as under.

(2.) It appears that 'A' Schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 1 sometimes in December 2002. In the plaint, the date of purchase has not been mentioned. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, the following statements have been made :

(3.) On the basis of the allegation made in paragraphs 11 and 12, partition has been claimed. Paragraphs 11 and 12 arc quoted as under :

Click here to view full judgment.

MIRA BANIK Vs. SMITA BHATTACHARYYA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address