Neeraj Kaushal
30 March 2010 at 18:49
i have file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to not raise any kind of construction on joint land but defendants have raised construction , now i want to remove the construction of defendants in joint land property , i want to amend my pleading , but i need a law of Supreme Court and High Court which support to me in my case , is there any body who can send me a citation , regarding this matter, that , construction can be removed in joint land if raise after ex-parte temporary injunction .
Neeraj Kaushal
30 March 2010 at 18:43
Sir,
i have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant , court granted ex-parte stay order to me and restrained the respondent from raising any sort of construction on joint land till next date of hearing , but wife and son of respondent is doing the construction work , main respondent is out of station , i have filed application under order 39 rule 2 A of C.P.C in civil court and i have made party in application only son and wife of respondent,not main respondent , my problem is that my application under order 39 rule 2 A of CPC is maintainable if maintainable, is there any law of supreme court or High court of India regarding this matter. I need a citation about my application , and also in application U/S 151 of CPC that ex-parte injunction can be implement with the help of police,
ashwinisavishnainwar
30 March 2010 at 18:25
there is one will which is ambigous &30 yrs old no one is alive to prove that will how to prove that it not registered .The stamp of that will taken on 1962 &will was written on it 1973.how that will be proved .in willpossestion of 1.03acr land was which is fragment .in our dis division of less 3acr is not allowed that wants premission of collector
Anonymous
30 March 2010 at 13:17
Is res judicata applicable if an issue has been decided by consumer forum and the same is re-agiatated by other party before civil court? Please provide me the supporting judgments in this regard.
Ambarish Gupta
30 March 2010 at 09:59
We are staying in a society as tenants for the past one year. Our landloard is regular in paying his annual maintenance charges to the society. He under his rights can use all the facilitys provided by the society like the club house, etc. untill now even the tenants were allowed to use all the facilities which the landloard or the owners could use paying a nominal fees which was same for all. But recently the society committee has increased the fees for tenants by 500% though it still remains the same for the owners staying in the society. Is this legal? Can a society have different fees for owners and tenants even though the landloard is paying his due share of maintenance regularly?
shivraj
30 March 2010 at 09:24
Under the specific relief act In pending execution procedure can Judgment debtor sale out his property to third person and create third party interest? In this circumstances the purchaser can save his right over suit property any remedy legal remedy to protect the third party like as a bonafide purchaser? Plz help me and give me ur valuable opinion to solve this problem and any references case laws relating this case Thank u.
s.loganathan
30 March 2010 at 09:09
I fall within the territorial jurisdiction of DRT Madurai. A lot of lapses and lacuna on the part of Bank as to cause & mandatory procedure. I am being confused by many that I can file my 'application' before the DRT Madurai. An application does not need any deposit. The DRT Madurai website on FAQs clearly states as :
"Under SARFEASI Act, 2002 for actions taken by authorized officer, appeal/application lies with whom?.
For actions taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by the authorised officer, an application shall lies to the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai under section 17(1) of that Act."
Please throw some light on this. I have already engaged a person in Madurai to handle this case since I am from Trichy, and he is opined to file it in Madurai. There is a school of thought that holds Madurai DRT to issue stay on deposit of large amount. However, the situation is different in Chennai. My case has merit and the Bank has vitiated on many counts.
Anonymous
29 March 2010 at 23:40
1.Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.
2.Issue of jurisdiction and other issues are framed.
3.Suit is fixed for evidence.
4.PLAINTIFF moved application for trial of issue of jurisdiction(pecuniary)as preliminary contending that junior division do not have jurisdiction.
5.Plaintiff contention is that defendant has filed document on record showing market value of suit land as 15 lakhs
6.Whether it can be tried as preliminary issue because as per order XIV all issues are to be decided together
7. Please give citations if any
s.loganathan
29 March 2010 at 20:01
Sarfaesi 13(2) issued and subsequent possession u/s 13(4) taken by affixing notice. No paper publication of possession notice has been made within limitation. I am in the midst of filing my application before the DRT. Now, the Bank issues a 'Fresh Notice' u/s 13(2). The Bank has not withdrawn the first notice or have not re-conveyed possession of my property. Can the Bank issue a second notice when the limitation for my application before the DRT is still in force for me to get my property re-conveyed? Is it not some kind of lis pendence or circumvention of my fundamental rights?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
law of limitation for dismissing a suit
A civil suit was filed against me in the year Jan 2008 and exparte injunction was obtained on frivilous ground.
The petitioner's have forged my signatures. Any provision in law where I can file a forgery case in the civil court?
Even as on date the actual trial has not started. Since 8 months the petitioner has not attended the court and is not being rep. by the counsel and the court is granting them time.
My query is how long can the pettitioner's drag on the case is there any provision y which the suit could be dismissed on technical grounds with out being recalled adnd set aside.