Rishu Rani v. Ashok Kumar

C.R. No.2246 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2246 of 2016 Date of Decision.30.03.2016 Rishu Rani .......Petitioner Vs.

Ashok Kumar ........Respondent

Present:

Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

The plaintiff who has sued on a contention that he has 176 sq. ft of property is still availabe has sought for the relief of partition. The contention in defence was that the entire property which is a house has been sold and no portion of the property has been retained by the plaintiff. The defendant was, therefore, relying on a sale deed to contend that the document did not contain any recital of portion of property as having been retained by the plaintiff. 2.

An application for rejection will be considered on what is stated in the plaint and except when there is a bar of law, the plaintiff's contention must be proved only at the time of trial and it cannot be prejudged by a contention taken in defence. The matter which the defendant has brought is essentially a matter of evidence regarding what was really the property that was sold and whether there was any portion of property that was retained by the plaintiff and I will not allow PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.04.01 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.2246 of 2016 -2this objection to prevail at this stage for rejection of the plaint. 3.

The order already passed by the Court below is maintained and the revision petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 30, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.04.01 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document