REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Wada Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee Appellant

V/S

Shri Piara Lal Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

VITHALBOWA V. NARAYAN DAJI [REFERRED TO]
RANGASWAMI NAIDU V. KRISHNASWAMI AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
ANGASWAMI NAYUDU AND ANOTHER V. KRISHNASWAMI AIYAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ARAVAMUDHU AIYANGAR AND OTHERS V. RAMANUJA AIYANGAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
KHOJE MAJRA V. NAGAR PANCHAYAT KHOJE MAJRA [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMI GOUNDAN V. SINGAPERUMAL KADAVUL [REFERRED TO]
<RC>2013(2) PLR 320</RC> PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT <JGN>HEMANT GUPTA</JGN> <AT>RSA NO. 2513 OF 1994.</AT> 09.11.2012 09.11.2012 WADA GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE SHRI PIARA LAL VERSUS <ADV>ISHRAT KAUR PANNU</ADV> <SI> CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,1908,ORDER 1 RULE 8 - A JURISTIC PERSON NEED NOT BE INCORPORATED EITHER AS A COMPANY OR A SOCIETY OR SUCH LIKE INSTITUTION - A JURISTIC PERSON IS COMPETENT TO SUE AND BE SUED IN ITS OWN NAME - BUT IN CASE OF IDOL OR FOR THAT GURU GRANTH SAHIB,IT NEEDS TO BE REPRESENTED BY A HUMAN AGENCY - SINCE PLAINTIFF HAS LED EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT PERSON WHO FILED SUIT IS A PERSON COMPETENT TO REPRESENT JURISTIC ENTITY - DECREE IN A SUIT FOR POSSESSION WILL ENURE FOR BENEFIT OF PLAINTIFF - WADA GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE - THUS [REFERRED TO]
DULI CHAND V. M/S MAHABIR PARSHAD TARLOK CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST,THROUGH ITS SECRETARY [REFERRED TO]
PIARA SINGH V. GURUGRANTH SAHIB MADHIPUR [REFERRED TO]
PREMATHANATH MULLICK V. PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK [REFERRED TO]
PURAN SINGH V. AJAIB SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND (DEAD) BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES V. THAKUR JANKI BALLABHJI MAHARAJ AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESHWARA V. VENKATESA [REFERRED TO]
SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE AMRITSAR VS. SOMNATH DASS [REFERRED TO]
GURUPADA HALDAR VS. MANMOHAN MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN DAS VS. NAURANGI LAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN DAS VS. NAURANGI LAL [REFERRED TO]
(BABU) MAHADEO PRASAD SINGH VS. KARIA BHARTHI [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA VARUTHI THIRTHA VS. BALUSAMI AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
GANESAMUTHURIAR VS. IDOLS OF SRI SAPPANI KARUPPUSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
SANKARANARAYANAN IYER VS. SRI POOVANANATHASWAMI TEMPLE, THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1994 passed by the learned first Appellate Court, dismissing the suit for possession of the shop in question.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession on 3.5.1991 alleging that the defendant is in possession of the shop in question as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 60.00. Since, the defendant has not paid the rent, therefore, his tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 5.4.1991 sent through registered post, which was duly received by him. Since the defendant failed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff, the present suit for possession and also for recovery of Rs. 1800.00 as arrears of rent along with interest @ 12% per annum was instituted.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant raising preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that it has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and that the notice dated 5.4.1991 was not legal in the eyes of law and was not served through a competent person as Shivdev Singh was not the authorised person to do so.

Click here to view full judgment.

WADA GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE Vs. SHRI PIARA LAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address