Latest Judgments by SC on CPC

SONU BABU BHAMBID & ORS. Vs. DREAM DEVELOPERS & ORS.

Date: 21/07/2009

INJUNCTION:

Interim injunction - Relevant factors to be taken into consideration -Explained - HELD: When a court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction, appellate court would be slow to interfere except for sufficient and cogent reasons - In the instant case, trial court on consideration of materials on record refused interim injunction - High Court rightly declined to interfere with -

Urban Development.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT:

Town planning - Rehabilitation of slum dwellers - Agreement between slum dwellers and developers to construct residential accommodation for slum dwellers provided they produce eligibility certificate and the plot encroached upon by them is declared as slum area - Slum dwellers failed to get required certificate - HELD: Grant of eligibility certificate was sine qua non for enforcement of agreement and in its absence, agreement came to an end - Assuming that modification of nature of construction was permissible, in absence of modification order, statutory interdict gets attracted and developer could not be permitted to raise construction for residential purpose - Development Control Regulations 1991 - Regulation 57(4)(c).

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908:Or. 41 - r. 27 - Production of additional evidence in appellate court - HELD: Filing of documents as additional evidence must be in terms of Or. 41
r. 27 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966.The appellants, (slum dwellers) and/or their predecessors-in-interest had encroached upon a property bearing CTS No.61. An agreement dated 26.6.2005 was entered into between the parties with regard to rehabilitation of the appellants on CTS No.82. One of the conditions of the agreement was that the appellants would obtain eligibility certificate from the competent authority. However, the respondents started construction of commercial building on Survey No.82. The appellants filed a suit in the City Civil Court for a declaration inter alia that the plaintiffs were entitled to be provided a flat each of carpet area of 225 sq.ft. on CTS No.82. An interim injunction was prayed that pending final disposal of the suit, construction activities on CTS No.82 be stayed. The trial court held that as the appellant failed to obtain essentiality certificate and CTS no.61 was not declared as slum area, the question of taking recourse of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme did not arise. The appeal filed by the slum dwellers having been dismissed by the High Court, they filed the appeal.

 

 Hi Friends!

       I am looking for a civil lawyer to defend a suit for recovery of money. Can I have the names, mobile numbers, email addresses of lawyers who are practicing regularly in Faridabad Court to proceed with the matter.

regards.

 

 I am sorry that post could be in other zone, I am really sorry, but still if anyone gives me the names of advocates and other details it is fine.

thanks.

Thanks sir 4 sharing

 Thanks for the case laws

MR. Y.PRAKASH THANX FOR LATEST JUDGMENT IN CPC

thanx 4 d case law

Thanks Sir.........

i need case law on the point that under order 14 rule 1 and 5 of code of civil procedure 1908 the appellate court  shoul not frame  issues.

Thanks a lot for judgements. Kindly do favour me with more of Judgements of Supreme Court and of Bombay High court on Order 8 Rule of C.P.C. (Written Statement Filing beyond 90 days period (limitation as per Act 22 of 2002) Regards.