In this case, dispute between appellant and R-4 concerning alleged right to way of R-4 decided by Revenue Authorities against appellant., that order was challenged before High Court as appeal was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, High Court passed cryptic order without considering essential issues. Without going into questions whether there was any easement or right in favour of Respondent 4 on the basis of which he could have demanded and could have granted access through the property of the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have considered essential issues arising in the matter in more detailed manner. Hence, writ petition was restored for decision afresh in accordance with law.

[Sulochanabai Swaropchand Chawre v. Commr., Amravati, (2021) 9 SCC 317]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Do not copy the content of this website.

Terms And condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.