Dadol Vs. Dadunath

Dadol vs Dadunath

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 28, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040820

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/1040820
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jan 28, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dadol

Advocate Shri. Vibhudhendra Mishra

Respondent

Dadunath

Excerpt

dadol versus dadulaal & ors.writ petition no.22003 ”28. 1.2013: shri vibhudhendra mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. challenge in this writ petition under article 227 of the constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the civil judge class-ii teonthar, district rewa, rejecting an application filed by petitioner under order xxvi rule 9 cpc for appointment of a commission. petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for specific performance and in the said suit an application filed for appointment of commission for demarcation has been rejected. a perusal of order passed by the court below goes to show that the application has been rejected on the ground that already a report of demarcation is available and at the very outset even without recording of evidence, the commission cannot be appointed. discretion exercised by the learned court and reasons given for rejection of application cannot be termed as pervers.or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage is called for. accordingly, finding no ground for interference into the matter the petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge ss/-

Full Judgment

Dadol versus Dadulaal & ORS.Writ Petition No.22003 ”

28. 1.2013: Shri Vibhudhendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Teonthar, District Rewa, rejecting an application filed by petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a commission.

Petitioner is plaintiff and has filed the suit in question for specific performance and in the said suit an application filed for appointment of commission for demarcation has been rejected.

A perusal of order passed by the court below goes to show that the application has been rejected on the ground that already a report of demarcation is available and at the very outset even without recording of evidence, the commission cannot be appointed.

Discretion exercised by the learned court and reasons given for rejection of application cannot be termed as perveRs.or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage is called for.

Accordingly, finding no ground for interference into the matter the petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Dadol vs Dadunath Same Subject Education