Kothiram Vs. Lakshminarayan

Kothiram vs Lakshminarayan

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 19, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1039734

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1039734
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jun 19, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kothiram

Advocate Shri. Jaideep Sirpurkar

Respondent

Lakshminarayan

Excerpt

writ petition no.9442/2013 19.06.2013 shri jaideep sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. he is heard on the question of admission. the petitioner - defendant has filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india being aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2013, passed by the district judge, chhindwara in misc. civil appeal no.10/13, affirming the order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the civil judge, class-ii, pardhurna in co.no.31-a/11 whereby allowing the application of the respondents, filed under order 39, rule 1 and 2 of cpc by issuing ad interim injunction, the petitioner has been restrained to make further construction over the disputed land. in the cours.of arguments on merits, in view of the findings given by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court in their respective orders (annexure p-6 and p-7) restraining the petitioner to make further construction over the disputed property and the documents filed on record, on making certain query, on which petitioner's counsel instead to argue further prays that instead to decide this petition on merits, the same be disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the impugned suit on some early date with some time bound schedule. considering the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner counsel, instead to decide this petition on merits, the same is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed. however considering the oral prayer of the petitioner's counsel, the trial court is directed to take an endeavour to expedite the trial of the impugned suit and conclude the same on some early date, probably on or before 31.12.2014. c c as per rules. (u.c.maheshwari) judge

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.9442/2013 19.06.2013 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

He is heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner - defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2013, passed by the District Judge, Chhindwara in Misc.

Civil Appeal No.10/13, affirming the order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pardhurna in Co.No.31-A/11 whereby allowing the application of the respondents, filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by issuing ad interim injunction, the petitioner has been restrained to make further construction over the disputed land.

In the couRs.of arguments on merits, in view of the findings given by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court in their respective orders (Annexure P-6 and P-7) restraining the petitioner to make further construction over the disputed property and the documents filed on record, on making certain query, on which petitioner's counsel instead to argue further prays that instead to decide this petition on merits, the same be disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the impugned suit on some early date with some time bound schedule.

Considering the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner counsel, instead to decide this petition on merits, the same is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.

However considering the oral prayer of the petitioner's counsel, the trial court is directed to take an endeavour to expedite the trial of the impugned suit and conclude the same on some early date, probably on or before 31.12.2014.

C c as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Kothiram vs Lakshminarayan Same Subject Education