Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Shaikh Babbu Vs. Govind

Shaikh Babbu vs Govind

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 19, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1041148

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shaikh Babbu

Respondent

Govind

Excerpt

f.a.no.416/2010 19.11.2012 shri manikant sharma, advocate for the appellant. ms.shweta gupta, advocate for respondent no.1. i.a.no.6325/2012 for modification of order dated 14.02.2011. it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant sheikh babu was a very poor person and could not deposit the cost incurred in the court below, though he had filed an application for modification of interim stay dated 02.12.2010 which was allowed on 14.02.2011 but in spite of this, he was unable to deposit the cost in two installments as directed on 14.02.2011. however, he has died on 23.02.2011. not the heirs are his widow and three minot children, who are not in a position to deposit the cost. on the aforesaid ground, it is prayed that the order dated 14.02.2011, directing the appellant herein, to deposit the cost incurred in the court below may be modified and they may be exempted from depositing the cost. learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has opposed the application and submitted that the appellants either may deposit the cost incurred in the court below or may be directed to execute the sale deed. after considering the aforesaid, we find it appropriate to modify the order and accordingly the condition no.2 in the interim order dated 14.02.2011, directing to appellant to deposit the cost, is hereby deleted. with the aforesaid direction, i.a.no.6325/2012 is finally disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt. vimla jain) judge judge psm

Full Judgment

F.A.No.416/2010 19.11.2012 Shri Manikant Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms.Shweta Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

I.A.No.6325/2012 for modification of order dated 14.02.2011.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant Sheikh Babu was a very poor person and could not deposit the cost incurred in the court below, though he had filed an application for modification of interim stay dated 02.12.2010 which was allowed on 14.02.2011 but in spite of this, he was unable to deposit the cost in two installments as directed on 14.02.2011.

However, he has died on 23.02.2011.

not the heirs are his widow and three minot children, who are not in a position to deposit the cost.

On the aforesaid ground, it is prayed that the order dated 14.02.2011, directing the appellant herein, to deposit the cost incurred in the court below may be modified and they may be exempted from depositing the cost.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has opposed the application and submitted that the appellants either may deposit the cost incurred in the court below or may be directed to execute the sale deed.

After considering the aforesaid, we find it appropriate to modify the order and accordingly the condition No.2 in the interim order dated 14.02.2011, directing to appellant to deposit the cost, is hereby deleted.

With the aforesaid direction, I.A.No.6325/2012 is finally disposed of.

C.C.as per rules.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.

Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial