Jinesh Chandra @ Dinesh Chandra vs Satya Prakash Varshney
2011 Latest Caselaw 834 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 121 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Jinesh Chandra @ Dinesh Chandra
 
Respondent :- Satya Prakash Varshney
 
Petitioner Counsel :- M.K. Gupta
 
Respondent Counsel :- A.K. Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.

The contention of the revisionist that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been served  upon him. A perusal of the signature of the person concerned at page 130 of the revision and the acknowledgment slip it appears that there is substance in the submission of leaned counsel for the revisionist.

The matter requires consideration.

Sri A.K. Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent prays for and is granted ten days time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.

List in the week commencing 2.5.2011.

Till the next date of listing, the dispossession of the revisionist shall remain stayed and in future the revisionist shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.1200/- per month as damages. In case of default, the interim order stands vacated.

Order Date :- 4.4.2011

OP