The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order I Rule (8) , The Limitation Act, 1963  - Section 23

Maintainability of the suit - Suit for permanent injunction - Allegation that defendant encroached upon substantial part of the disputed street - Trial Court decreeing the suit directing the removal of unauthorized construction from the ground - Defendants further restrained from raising any further construction in future on the aforesaid street - Decree passed by Trial Court affirmed by the First Appellate Court and High Court - High Court holding that suit not barred by limitation as an encroachment on public street is a continuing wrong and there exists a continuing cause of action - Appeal against - Plea of non-compliance of the provisions of Order I Rule 8 CPC raised by defendant - Suit filed by an aggrieved person whose right to use public street was prejudicially affected - Since affected person himself has filed the suit, the suit cannot be dismissed for alleged non-compliance of provisions of Order I Rule 8 CPC - Evidence on record showing that defendant encroached upon the suit property consisting of the public street - Decree passed by trial Court confirmed - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Topic Index, Judgement

The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 34

Declaration of possession and permanent injunction - Trial court dismiss the suit - First Appeal decreed suit - High Court - Reversed the judgment and decree of the Court below - Suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession is not maintainable - Appeal - It is found that apart from making a prayer for declaration there is also a consequential prayer for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property or interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff therein - Finding of the High Court that the suit is merely for declaration and is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be sustained - Impugned order of the High Court set aside and of the First Appellate Court restored - Appeal allowed

Found In:  Judgement

Civil Law  - Authorisation

Authorisation - Sign, verify and file suit for recovery - Maintainability - Challenged - Ground - Not authorised to file suit - Authority letter not sufficient - Trial Court dismissed suit - Not authorised - Division Bench reversed - Decreed suit - Appeal - Respondent not produced any evidence - Resolution to file suit - No resolution by Board of Directors - Delegating powers to file suit- Impugned judgment of High Court set aside - Trial Court restored - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 6

Suit for possession - Suit for recovery of possession of the suit property of which plaintiff tenant was forcibly dispossessed - Trial Court directed to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff - Revision against dismissed by the HC - Where a tenant in exclusive possession is dispossessed forcibly by a person other than landlord, landlord can maintain suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against such person -landlord by letting out the property to a tenant does not lose possession as he continues to retain the legal possession although actual possession, is with the tenant - Dispossession of tenant by a third party is dispossession of the landlord - Non-impleadment of the tenant does not fatal to the maintainability of the suit - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement