Court No. - 1 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 84 of 2010 Petitioner :- Prem Babu Respondent :- Bangali Babu Petitioner Counsel :- Arvind Srivastava Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent.
Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be
filed within two weeks thereafter.
List in the 1st week of April 2010.
Following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present
case.
(1) Whether the Appellate Court have not considered the reasoning given by
the Trial Court, which amounts to an error apparent on the face of record.
(2) Whether it being held by the Appellate Court that there being inherent
contradiction in the statement of the plaintiff, it made an error apparent on the
face of record in yet ignoring and treating them irrelevant for deciding the
Suit, which amounts to an error apparent on the face of record.
(3) Whether there being no documents on record or evidence on record,
demonstrating that the defendant was living with the permission of the
plaintiff over the premises in dispute, the findings recorded by the Appellate
Court are perverse and based upon surmise and conjectures holding that the
defendants was living with the permission of the plaintiff.
(4) Whether in spite of there being admission that the defendant was living
more than 15 years openly and define the title of the plaintiff over the
premises in dispute, the Appellate Court made an error apparent on the face of
record in treating this aspect.
(5) Whether the Appellate Court has misinterpreted the documents namely
Paper No.29-Ga, which amounts to an error apparent on the face of record.
(6) Whether the defendants having live from more than 12 years in the
premises in dispute, which was also admitted by the plaintiff, the court below
made an error apparent on the face of record in yet not treating the defendant
as owner of the premises in dispute.
(7) Whether the Appellate Court has made an error on the face of record in
holding that for the challenge the finding of the Trial Court in spite of the
judgment in his favour, the defendant ought to file an appeal, which amounts
to an error apparent on the face of record vitiating the impugned judgment in
the eyes of law.
Till then, status quo shall be maintained by the parties. The appellant shall not
be dispossessed from the land in dispute.
Order Date :- 22.1.2010
pks