Hari Prasad Vs. Gopal

Hari Prasad vs Gopal

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 01, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1039770

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/1039770
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 01, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hari Prasad

Advocate Shri. Arun Kumar Choubey

Respondent

Gopal

Advocate Shri. Sanjeev Singh

Excerpt

w.p.no.15983/2011 02/04/2013 shri arun kumar choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri a.s.jha, learned sr.advocate with k.s.rajput, learned counsel for respondent no.1. shri sanjeev singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2. challenging the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the 1st additional district judge, harda interfering with an injunction granted by the trial court, petitioner has filed this writ petition. even though, various grounds are raised in this writ petition challenging the interference made by learned appellate court, the fact remains that while issuing notice on 18.3.2011, status-quo was directed to be maintained and this order has continued for a period of more than one and half year not and prior to that, the injunction granted by the trial court was in operation. keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing, this petition is allowed. the order of status-quo shall continue to remain in operation and parties are directed to maintain the same during the pendency of the suit. the parties shall produce this order before the trial court and within one year of the production of this order, the trial court shall decide the same after hearing all concerned. with the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge nd

Full Judgment

W.P.No.15983/2011 02/04/2013 Shri Arun Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri A.S.Jha, learned Sr.Advocate with K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

Challenging the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Harda interfering with an injunction granted by the trial court, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Even though, various grounds are raised in this writ petition challenging the interference made by learned appellate court, the fact remains that while issuing notice on 18.3.2011, status-quo was directed to be maintained and this order has continued for a period of more than one and half year not and prior to that, the injunction granted by the trial court was in operation.

Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the time of hearing, this petition is allowed.

The order of status-quo shall continue to remain in operation and parties are directed to maintain the same during the pendency of the suit.

The parties shall produce this order before the trial court and within one year of the production of this order, the trial court shall decide the same after hearing all concerned.

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed of.

Certified Copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Hari Prasad vs Gopal Same Subject Education