rajesh patil
21 July 2018 at 17:52
Sir
i have purschasing the 1 acre land in the mangaon ,roha,MAHARASHTRA .
This land sell by EXPAT PROPERTIES,BANGLOR BASE COMPANY
WE HAVE PAID THE PAYMENT THRU INSTALMENT ,NOW THE TIME PEROID IS OVER ON DEC 2018
THE COMPANY ADVISE US THIS EMAIL : " Accordingly Expat as an organization has to comply by these rules "
CAN YOU ADVIS THE AGRICULTARAL LAND IS COMES UNDER MAHARERA / RERA ACT
PLEASE GUIDE ACCORDINGLY
JAIME
21 July 2018 at 17:49
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned
Judge framing additional issues, based on an application filed by the
petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out
that the learned Judge has erroneously considered that the petitioners
are claiming ownership in respect of the property bearing Survey
No.47/20, as well as Survey No. 47/20-A of Assonora Village. The
learned Counsel also points out that though the issue of cause of
action has been framed, nevertheless, there is no specific issue
framed as to whether respondents prove that the petitioners had
knowledge of the deed of partition.
3. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and
with his assistance, I have gone through the impugned order, as well
as the application filed by the petitioners for framing additional
issues and the issues which were already framed by the learned
Judge.
4. With regard to the first contention of the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, on perusal of issue No.2, as framed by
the learned Judge, the fact that the original property is surveyed
under No.47/20, which was thereafter surveyed under No.47/20-A is
taken care of. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioners that a specific issue has to be
framed in connection with the property surveyed under No.47/20-A,
would not survive.
5. With regard to the second contention of the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, on perusal of the issues framed by the
learned Judge, I find that an issue of limitation has already been
framed. Consequently, the issue sought to be raised by the
petitioners would have to be established in the context of the findings
on such an issue.
6. In such circumstances, I find that there is no jurisdictional
error committed by the learned Judge which would call for
interference of this Court. The law provides that issues can be
framed and re-cast at any stage of the suit. As such, there is no
failure of justice to the petitioners in case this Court does not
interfere with the impugned order, at this stage.
7. Hence, the petition stands rejected.
The Plaintiffs filed Writ Petition against an impugned Order against the Trial Court for refusing to frame all issues, to frame proper issues and correct defective issues framed. The Petition was rejected by the High Court without properly examining the contents of the Writ Petition and by further stating that - The Law provides that Issues can be framed and recast at any stage of the suit and that the Court does not interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Does this mean that at the time of proving the issues framed by the court the Plaintiffs can raise objection against faulty issues and seek framing of all issues not framed? Or should the Plaintiffs move another application for framing of issues before the trial commences?
Anonymous
21 July 2018 at 16:48
SIR, WE CAN BOTH CASE ATTIME CIVIL SUIT SUMMERY OR 138 CRIMAL , WE WANT FESS IS APLICALE SEPARTLY
Pardeep Gupta
21 July 2018 at 16:09
Sir, I am working in BSNL. In a case, pisciplinary proceedings were initiated against me in the year 2014 and I was awarded a penalty of Censure and an amount of Rs 60000/- imposed on me due to some pecuniary loss to the Deptt. Recently, I have been promoted. The promotions have been made as per vacancy year, I am eligible for promotion against the vacancy year 2015-16. But, my name has been considered for vacancy year 2016-17 owing to my cloud period in 2015-16. As a result, about 40 nos of my juniors have become senior to me. DPC for the promotions was made as per current VC and no DPC was conducted since 2014 owing to some court case. I have not found any DOPT OMs which permits my Deptt to make me junior. Kindly advise and suggest further course of action viz representations, CAT case etc. Thanks.
AMIT KUMAR
21 July 2018 at 14:54
My wife and I own a flat in joint name. We live separately and she is occupying the said flat. We are thinking of divorce due to incompatibility. I have a lot of items in that flat which is mine and i didnt take at the time of leaving the house. Now her parents and family members have occupied the flat and they donot allow me to enter the flat and take my stuff. Can i get possession of 50% share by any means??
Lavanya
21 July 2018 at 13:22
Sir
We came to know about the site, of 167 yards in srinivas nagar of gosala, near simhachalam through a broker, the site is west facing, 300 meters distance from brts road and comes under corporation according to words of broker, he priced it at 32,000 per yard, and he is not giving the owner number and documentation for us to verify for lrc approval. What should we do
Naveen
21 July 2018 at 12:40
I have OBC from Haryana
Now i want to apply in Delhi
Can i get it cancelled from Haryana
Anonymous
21 July 2018 at 12:03
If somebody lodge a written complaint for abusive language on whtsapp and call what case can be filled? And if verbal settlement is done by both parties and police asks the person against whom complaint is done what he will have to say about settlement
Do he have to give a proof of settlement to police?
Shriharimathad
21 July 2018 at 10:55
Respected sir
I am interested to purchase agricultural land in my wife's name my wife's brother is a agriculturist and he has a pahni can I purchase the agricultural land
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Limitation act (for 12 year when start)
मेरे दादा ने 10 बीघा जमीन 1963 में बेची , उसके बाद सेटेलमेंट 78-79 में उस व्यक्ति के नाम 16 बीघा जमीन दर्ज हो गयी । व एक अन्य को 40 बीघा बेची यही उसके नाम 34 बीघा दर्ज हो गयी । व राजस्व नक्से में भी इस गलत ढंग से नक्से बन गए और उसी हिसाब से 16 बीघा पर उस किसान ने कब्जा कर लिया । 1981 में मेरे दादा की डेथ हो गयी जिससे इस मामले की कोई जानकारी हमे नही थी ।
2016 में एक केस फाइल किया ओर 2017 में डिक्री आयी जिससे वापस वह किसान 16 बीघा से 10 बीघा का खातेदार रह गया व 34 बीघा से वापस 40 हो गयी और राजस्व नक्शे में दुरस्ती हो गयी , परंतु वह 16 बीघा में से 6 बीघा पर कब्जा देने से मना कर रहा है ।
यहां पर मेरे पास क्या रेमेडी है ? और यह 12 साल का लिमिटेशन कहाँ से अप्लाई होगा ?
(यह मामला मेरे संज्ञान में 2017 में डिक्री व निर्णय पड़ने पर आया ।)