Judicial Discretion Should Be Excercised According to Rules of Reason and Justice 2011 Sc

9 pages

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 9
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY ans JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA in a case of Poonam & others vs Harish Kumar and another, Decided on 03-11-2011, Observed that It is well settled that judicial discretion shall always be exercised “according to the rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion.
  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9059 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No.18191/2009)Poonam & others ...Appellant(s) - Versus - Harish Kumar and another ...Respondent(s) J U D G M E N TGANGULY, J. 1.Leave granted.2.This civil appeal is directed against the orderdated 01.12.2008 of the High Court of Punjaband Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil RevisionNo.3745/2008, whereby the High Court declined 1  to interfere with the order dated 27.07.2007 ofthe District Judge, Ambala. By order dated27.07.2007 the District Judge dismissed theapplication for condonation of delay of 63 daysin filing the appeal against the judgment ofthe trial court in Civil Suit No. 23/2003.3.The facts and circumstances, which are relevantto this appeal, are as under.4.All the appellants no. 1 to 3 are sisters ofRespondent no. 1, who is their brother. Thefather of the parties died on 17.01.2003 andthe mother had predeceased the father. Eightdaughters and one son survived their father.The father during his lifetime arranged themarriage of six daughters except the appellantno. 1 & 2 herein. 5. In the year 2003, the appellants brought a suit(CS no. 23 of 2003) before the Civil Judge, 2  Ambala City for declaration of their title as3/9 th owner each, of the suit scheduledproperties and for permanent injunctionrestraining the Respondent no.1 frominterfering with their peaceful possession andcreating any third party rights in the saidproperties. According to the appellants-plaintiffs, the suit schedule properties weretheir ancestral property in which plaintiffshave got right by birth and all of them havegot equal shares in the same.6.The Respondent no. 1 controverted the aforesaidaverment of the appellants-plaintiffs byclaiming that the suit schedule properties werenot ancestral but were self-acquired by theirdeceased father. Further case of the RespondentNo.1 is that he is the absolute owner of thesaid properties by virtue of a registered Willdated 18.06.2002 executed by the deceasedfather in his favour. 3  7.On the pleadings of the parties, the TrialCourt framed five issues. Thereafter the casewas adjourned for evidence of the appellants-plaintiffs. Despite several opportunities, theappellants-plaintiffs allegedly led noevidence. Since there was no evidence of theplaintiffs on record, the Respondent no.1-defendant also did not lead any evidence.8.By order dated 01.12.2006 the Trial Courtdismissed the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs with costs and accordingly a decreewas drawn up.9.The appellants-plaintiffs challenged theaforesaid judgment and decree by filing anappeal before the District Judge, being CivilAppeal No.12 of 2007. The appellants-plaintiffsalso filed an application for condonation ofdelay of 63 days in filing the appeal by 4
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks