Arun Vs. Subhash

Arun vs Subhash

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 24, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040113

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/1040113
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 24, 2013
Subject: Other Taxes

Case Summary

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

Other Taxes

Key legal issue: Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arun

Advocate Shri. Sanjay K. Agrawal

Respondent

Subhash

Excerpt

arun versus subhash and others.w.p. no.6342/13 24/04/13 shri sanjay k. agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. it is the defendant's petition under article 227 of the constitution challenging an inter- locutory order passed by the trial court rejecting an application under order 14 rule 5 c.p.c. for framing additional issues. it has been held by the court that the issues framed are sufficient to decide the disputes between the parties and it is not necessary to frame any additional issue. the discretion exercised by the court cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in the proceedings under article 227 of the constitution is called for. accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge vy/-

Full Judgment

Arun versus Subhash and others.W.P.

No.6342/13 24/04/13 Shri Sanjay K.

Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is the defendant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an inter- locutory order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C.

for framing additional issues.

It has been held by the Court that the issues framed are sufficient to decide the disputes between the parties and it is not necessary to frame any additional issue.

The discretion exercised by the Court cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for.

Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Arun vs Subhash Same Subject Other Taxes