surendra
01 April 2018 at 23:14
Recently i won a case of writ B in high court of Allahabad and before 8 years ago same judgement was made by District court(DDC) in my favor but party is crazy i doubt he may still try for any other court. this took 8 long year i am worried because now planning for construction. question is where he can go against this order and is there any way he could get stay order. Plese suggest what should i do to avoid all this again.
Thanks in advance..
Regards,
Surendra Yadav
anu radhalll
01 April 2018 at 18:57
Sir ,it's land suit case.we are not cultivating persent..
1993 consent decree passed and also judgement comptd 1993.
Actual in that decree my grandfather is defendant.( Defendant -my grandfather is died right now).
Actually - my grandfather not went to the court in 1993.even consent decree passed..
I went to court asked for certificate copies in that written statement missed somewhere.
Vakalth and judgement --my grandfather name is there but grandfather father name written wrongly (some other name)
Now can I appeal decree??
Rasheedkhan
01 April 2018 at 17:01
Dear Sir, We filed SLP at Supreme court of India, SLP dissmiised and order is : we find no reason to entertain this petition. Is it possible to submit review petiton at High court or?
Mohammed NIZAMUDDIN Farukhi
31 March 2018 at 02:58
Regards
My client consumer case at state Consumer forum at Chennai, on Feb 2018 the SCDRC directed the Complainants' to present before National forum due to the pecuniary Jurisdiction on account of latest SC judgment. This case is against the builder and bank filed in 2006 before SCDRC for getting possession of the flat along with compensation. During 2012 the bank had moved under RDDBF Act against my client since my client had suspended the EMI during 2010 when the proceedings were only running on summons. The bank invoked Sarfaesi Act for which my client replied for closing the loan account and instead of addressing the issue or auctioning, the bank moved drt as a recovery suit which is reserved for orders since 16 Aug 2016. At present the possession is with the bank repossessed from the builder without following the mandatory rules laid down in the act.
Now my question is:
If we present the petition in National Consumer forum now, as the similar case is in dry, will it effect sec 34 of the Sarfaesi Act and RDDBF act
Please guide
Bhaven
30 March 2018 at 20:00
Is a Board Resolution authorizing one of the Directors to defend an eviction suit and sign and verify a written statement mandatory?
I am the Plaintiff in an eviction suit. Whether I can point out this defect to the Court and whether the Court can strike out the defence or alternatively frame an additional issue? The matter is at the stage of cross-examination (cross has not yet commenced).
Thanks in advance!
kaur
30 March 2018 at 15:51
High court issued notice of motion to respondents to appear before the date fixed. Journalist/reporter had published in the newspaper regarding appearance of notice by high court to respondents. Can case be filed against journalist / reporter.
Jeevan
30 March 2018 at 13:40
Hello Friends,
I need a clarification.
When a partition suit is referred to Lok Adalat and when an award is passed specifying shares of all parties to the suit, whether such award is treated as final decree or partition deed? Whether such awards need registration? Please enlighten me the procedure.
Regards.
Anonymous
30 March 2018 at 10:47
IN THE COURT OF THE V SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD
e.A.NO. OF 2015
IN
e.p.No. 58 of 1984
IN
o.s.No. 389 of 1969
BETWEEN:
B.Ashok Rao, S/o.B.Narsing Rao,
Aged 62 years, Occ; Business,
R/o.H.No.
Old Alwal, R.R.Dist.,
… Petitioner/DHr./Pltf.
A n d
Late U.Narsimha Reddy,
and others.
…Respondents/Jdrs./Defts.
COMMON AFFIDAVIT
I, B.Ashok Rao, S/o.late B.Narsing Rao, Aged 62 years, Occ; Business, R/o.
, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as under:
1. I am the petitioner/DHr./Pltf. herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts.
2. I submit that the deceased 1st defendant entered into an Agreement of Sale dt.17.09.1962 in my favour in respect of the land to the extent of Ac.82.29 guntas in Sy.No.131, 130, 129, 128, 127, 126, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad District, now in Ranga Reddy Dist., for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-.
3. I submit that on account of breach of terms committed by the deceased 1st defendant i.e., late U.Narsimha Reddy, I filed a suit in OS No.389/1969 on the file of this Hon’ble Court, against the deceased 1st defendant, seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dt.17.09.1962 in respect of the said property. However, on contest the said suit was dismissed by a Judgment and Decree dt.28.09.1971.
4. I submit that aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree passed in OS No.389/1969, I preferred an appeal vide CCCA No.190/1972 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and during the pendency of the said appeal, there was a compromise entered into between myself and the L.Rs. of deceased 1st defendant, who were subsequently brought on record as defendants in the suit and also in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal in CCCA No.190/1972 was decreed in terms of the compromise on 20.07.1976 in respect of Ac.20.39 guntas in Sy.No.130, 131, 129 on the eastern side, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in Ranga Reddy District, as against my claim for Ac.82.29 gts.,
5. I submit that I was constrained to file an execution petition in EP No.58/1984 before this Hon’ble Court seeking to execute the compromise decree dt.20.07.1976 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CCCA No.190/1972, since the respondents therein committed breach of the terms of compromise. The said E.P. No.58/1984 also ended in a compromise and accordingly the same was ordered/decreed on 21.02.1985 in terms of the compromise in respect of the land to the extent of Ac.12.00 gts., in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131 of Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in R.R.Dist., It is pertinent that an extent of Ac.12.00 gts., as against the claim of Ac.20.39 gts., in the earlier compromise in CCCA No.190/1972.
6. I submit that in terms of the said compromise in E.P.No.58/1984, the respondents delivered the physical vacant possession of the said land to the extent of Ac.12.00 gts. in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131 to me and that the respondents herein agreed to execute and register the Sale Deed in respect of the said land at my costs. It was specifically agreed in the said compromise that in case of failure or default in executing and registering the Sale Deed, as agreed by the respondents herein, I am at liberty to get the same executed through this Hon’ble Court.
7. I submit that by virtue of the said order/decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, I got the said land to the extent of Ac.12.00 gts. in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in R.R.Dist., validated by following the procedure as contemplated by Section 5-A of Record of Rights in land and Pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), by paying necessary registration charges and stamp duty and accordingly the then M.R.O., Medchal passed orders in File No.C/7/92 dt.30.06.1992 in respect of the agriculture lands bearing Sy.No.128 – Ac.3.00 gts.,; Sy.No.130 – Ac.6.03 gts.,; and Sy.No.131 – Ac.2.37 gts., totally admeasuring Ac.12.00 gts., situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad Dist., now in R.R.Dist., Consequently Title Deeds and Pattedar Pass Books have also been issued in my favour in respect of the said extent of Ac.12.00 gts., and pahanies also reflects my name as pattedar and possessor of the said land.
8. While the matter stood thus, the respondents herein with ulterior motive and notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous terms of compromise, filed an appeal vide Proceedings No.C/580/1993 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R.Dist., East, under Section 5 (5) of the said Act, thereby challenging the proceedings dt.30.06.1992 issued by the then M.R.O., Medchal. The Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Respondents by an Order dt.25.09.1993, thereby confirming the Order passed by the M.R.O. Medchal.
9. However, the respondents challenged the said order dt.25.09.1993 in No.C/580/1993, before the Joint Collector, R.R.Dist., Hyderabad, by way of a Revision in File No.D5/8397/1994 and the same was dismissed by an Order dt.04.12.2000 by the Joint Collector, thus confirming the order of the R.D.O. and also M.R.O. Medchal.
10. Having not been satisfied with the said three orders, the respondents filed a Writ Petition in WP No.3300/2001, challenging the Order dt.04.12.2000 passed by the Joint Collector, thus confirming the orders of the R.D.O. and M.R.O. On contest by the respondents herein, the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 15.10.2001 by the Hon’ble High Court, thereby confirming the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, upholding the proceedings passed in my favour under Section 5-A of the said Act.
11. I submit that the respondents challenged the Order dt.15.10.2001, passed by the Hon’ble High Court, by a Writ Appeal in WA No.1812/2001 and on contest, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court allowed the said Writ Appeal, by an Order dt.07.02.2005, thereby setting aside the Order dt.15.10.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.3300/2001. By the said Order dt.07.02.2005, the Hon’ble High Court quashed all the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under Section 5-A of the Act in my favour. Aggrieved by the said Order dt.07.02.2005 passed in WA No.1812/2001, I preferred a SLP No.10907/2005 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an Order dt.13.10.2015.
12. I submit that in the Order dt.07.02.2005 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WA No.1812/2001, the main point for consideration was that a Compromise Decree can be treated as a Sale Deed for the purpose of Section 5-A of the Act and the Hon’ble High Court held in negative, holding that under Section 5-A, the Compromise Decree could not have been validated, in the absence of execution of Sale Deed, pursuant to the Compromise Decree passed in EP No.58/1984. Even the respondents took the same stand before the Hon’ble High Court, without disputing the compromise decree passed in EP No.58/1984.
13. I submit that the respondents contention all through was that the decree/order dt.21.02.1985, was not executed and consequently no registered Sale Deed was executed in my favour and as such no proceedings can be issued in my favour under Section 5-A of the Act. Thus, the rights accrued to me, by virtue of the Decree/Order dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, remained intact, inasmuch as the proceedings of the Revenue Authorities have been quashed only on the point of law that under Section 5-A of the Act, no proceedings can be issued on the basis of Compromise Decree passed in Specific Performance.
14. In the circumstances, I am entitled for execution of a Regd.Sale Deed in respect of the schedule of property i.e., the land admeasuring Ac.12.00 guntas in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in Ranga Reddy District. In this context, it is reiterated here that in the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed in EP No.58/1984, it was specifically agreed that
“In case of failure or default in executing and register the Sale Deed as agreed by the Judgment Debtor, the Decree Holder is at liberty to execute the Sale Deed through Court”
15. Thus, in view of such categorical condition laid down in the Decree/Order dt.21.02.1985 in EP No.58/1984 passed by this Hon’ble Court, I am entitled for execution of Sale Deed in my favour in respect of the said property by this Hon’ble Court. The delay occurred in filing the present petitions, is neither willful, nor wanton, inasmuch as I have been pursuing the remedy before the Revenue Authorities, who passed favourable orders in my favour under Section 5-A of the Act. Even the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court, dismissed the Writ Petition in WP No.3300/2001 filed by the respondents on 15.10.2001, challenging the Order of the Joint Collector.
16. Thus, till such time there was absolutely no occasion whatsoever for me to approach this Hon’ble Court for execution of the Sale Deed, all the Orders were in my favour. It is only when the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court passed orders dt.07.02.2005 in WA No.1812/2001, it was crystalized that Section 5-A of the Act was not applicable. However, since all the Lower Fora including the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court passed orders in my favour, I had to prefer an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 13.10.2015.
17. It is pertinent to submit here that in terms of the Order/Decree passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, the respondents had delivered to me, the vacant physical possession of the land to the extent of Ac.12.00 gts., in Sy.No.128, 130 and 131, situated at Kandlakoi Village, Medchal Mandal, Hyderabad, now in R.R.Dist., Even as on today I have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, without any interference from anybody. As already submitted the Title Deeds and Pattedar Pass Books have been issued in my favour and the pahanies also reflects my name as Pattedar and Possessor of the said land. Thus, if the Sale Deed is not registered in my favour in respect of the said land in terms of the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, I shall suffer from serious hardships and irreparable loss.
18. Therefore, it is just and proper for this Hon’ble Court to reopen the EP No.58/1984 and consequently execute and register a Sale Deed in my favour in respect of the said land (morefully defined and described in the petition) in terms of the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
a) Reopen the E.P.No.58/1984 for the purpose of passing appropriate orders in the petition for execution of Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner/DHr. in respect of schedule property in terms of the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984,
b) Execute and register Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner/Decree Holder in respect of the petition schedule property in terms of the Order/Decree dt.21.02.1985 passed by this Hon’ble Court in EP No.58/1984, before the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, R.R.Dist., and to pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of Justice.
Sworn and signed before me
on this the day of November, 2015
at Hyderabad. Deponent
Advocate//Hyderabad
IN THE COURT OF THE V SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD
e.A.NO. OF 2015
IN
e.p.No. 58 of 1984
IN
o.s.No. 389 of 1969
BETWEEN:
B.Ashok Rao, S/o.B.Narsing Rao,
Aged 62 years, Occ; Business,
R/o.H.No.
Old Alwal, R.R.Dist.,
… Petitioner/DHr./Pltf.
A n d
Late U.Narsimha Reddy,
and others.
…Respondents/Jdrs./Defts.
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER- RULE-
, R/W.SEC.151 OF CPC
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
HYDERABAD
DT: COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
siddhartha ghosh
30 March 2018 at 01:22
My mother has a pension account on SBI kolkata headquarter branch, she was given an overpayment of pension by the bank quite a few years back and it continued for sometime. After the bank noticed it they sent us a letter mentioning that my mother has received extra pension amount from the bank and the bank will deduct 1/3rd of the pension amount from now on until it is totally recovered but suddenly yesterday they sent a letter to us mentioning that a lien has been put on my mother's pension account and we need to pay the due amount of 602000 immediately. although we asked them to mention several times through mails that what exactly is the pension amount that we are receiving from govt of west bengal and what is the amount that is left behind after deduction for so many months they never gave us those figures. What should we do now?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Applicability of res judicata to a pil seeking mandams
A PIL was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2012 by a Residents Welfare Association i.e., the Petitioner, against a Charitable Institution, the 1st Respondent, which had constructed a high rise building by violating all the conditions of grant of free land to it and zonal rules and regulations. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) which was arrayed as the 2nd Respondent filed two affidavits acknowledging all the said violations committed by the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent i.e., BBMP vide its two affidavits filed separately - one by the Commissioner and the other by its Head-Legal Cell stated that they have already taken appropriate steps to recover possession of the premises and would abide by any order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Their learned Councils also promised to take prompt action in that regard. Based on the affidavits filed, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to dispose of the petition during the year 2015. Even after three years of the said order, the 2nd Respondents i.e., BBMP has failed to take any action till date.
The point to be noted as per Section 11: Public Interest Litigation, it is is held that if relief sought in the previous and the subsequent proceedings are substantially same and the cause of action in both the proceedings are same, the previous decision would operate as res judicata.
But there was no previous decision/order. In other words, the petition was 'disposed of'. Hence, invoking the provisions of Contempt of Court may not arise.
Under the above circumstances, whether Res judicata is applicable? If so, under what Order and Rule of CPC, the application is to be filed again before the same Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, seeking specific order within a specific time frame.?