RSA/210/2003 of PROMILA GUPTA Vs KANWAL KUMAR SAIGAL & ANR on 14 December 2005

>r. No.DateOrdersINTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

RSA 210/2003PROMILAGUPTAAppellantThrough Mr.Sudhir Nandrajolg,Advocate.

versus

KANWAL KUMAR SAIGAL & ANRRespondentsThrough Mr. Alok Mahajan withPt.Rajesharya, Advocates.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. SODHI

%

ORDER09.01.2006

CM.APPL.234/2006:

This is an applicationfor restoration.Cause shown in theapplicationappears to be genuine.The applicationis allowedand disposedof.RSA 210/2003is restoredto original numberand file.

RSA 210/2003& CM.APPL.721/2003:

RSA 210/2003seekstochallengetheorderoftheAdditionalDistrict Judge in AppealNo.529/2000,which appealwas against the Judgment and decree dated 8.3.2000 passed bythe Civil Judge, Delhi in suit No. 316/92.Learned Trial [RSA 210/2003][page 1 of 2]

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing.

r. No.DateOrdersCourt vide its order dated 29.3.2003lias dismissed tlie appeal.It is contendedby counsel for the petitiner that mere suitfor declarationin the present facts and circumstanceswould notlie. Counsel for the respondent,on the other hand, relies upon ajudgmentof the SupremeCourtinShantiKumar PandaVs.ShakuntalaDevi. JT 2005(11)SC 122, where the law has beensettled and where such a declarationwould lie.Having heard counselfor the parties and having perusedthe judgmentunderchallengeas alsothe judgmentof theSupreme Court, I am of the view that concurrentfindings of factcannot be disturbedin a regular second appeal.RSA 210/2003& CM.APPL.721/2003are dismissed.Dasti.SODHI, JJANUARY 09, 2006bpCourt vide its order dated 29.3.2003lias dismissed tlie appeal.It is contendedby counsel for the petitiner that mere suitfor declarationin the present facts and circumstanceswould notlie. Counsel for the respondent,on the other hand, relies upon ajudgmentof the SupremeCourtinShantiKumar PandaVs.ShakuntalaDevi. JT 2005(11)SC 122, where the law has beensettled and where such a declarationwould lie.Having heard counselfor the parties and having perusedthe judgmentunderchallengeas alsothe judgmentof theSupreme Court, I am of the view that concurrentfindings of factcannot be disturbedin a regular second appeal.RSA 210/2003& CM.APPL.721/2003are dismissed.Dasti.SODHI, JJANUARY 09, 2006bp[RSA 210/2003][page 2 of 2]