Kemli Bai Vs. General Manager

Kemli Bai vs General Manager

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 30, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1041693

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/1041693
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 30, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kemli Bai

Advocate Shri. Jaideep Sirpurkar

Respondent

General Manager

Excerpt

.....state as a party is only an irregularity and on such consideration the stay granted after evaluating the balance of convenience, irreparable loss and other considerations, could not be interfered with. learned counsel for the petitioners’ points out that not the state government has been impleaded as party, therefore, the injunction granted be restored. 2 writ petition no ::7909. / 2013 kemli bai and others versus general manager, mpamr.and others even though shri d.n.shukla tried to emphasize that the state government was a necessary party and without impleading the state the suit was not maintainable, the fact remains that the dispute pertains to private property and partition of the same between private parties and state was only a formal party. the learned trial court granted injunction after evaluating the matter, existence of prima facie case and irreparable loss. the learned appellate court should not have interfered with the said injunction merely because the state was not impleaded as a party. the order passed by the appellate court as contained in paragraph 17 of the impugned order, vacating the say without evaluating the merits of the matter is unsustainable. in view of the same, this petition is allowed. the order passed by the appellate court vacating stay on the ground that the state has not been made a party is quashed. the stay granted by the trial court is restored and the learned court below is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. with the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No ::

7909. / 2013 Kemli Bai and others versus General Manager, MPAMr.and others 30.04.2013.

Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar for the petitioneRs.Shri D.N.Shukla for respondent No.1.

Challenging an order-dated 10.4.2013 - Annexure P/4, setting aside a temporary injunction granted by the trial court in a proceeding held under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vide Annexure P/3 dated 6.3.2013, petitioners have filed this writ petition.

Petitioners have filed the suit in question seeking declaration of their share with regard to the property in question and in the said suit the State was not made a party.

Even though after evaluating the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, injunction was granted by the trial court vide Annexure P/3 only on the ground that the State Government has not been arrayed as respondent and without impleading the State, the suit would not be maintainable.

The learned appellate court has vacated the injunction granted and, therefore, petitioners are before this Court.

Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.invites my attention to various judgments on the question and submits that impleading the State as a party is only an irregularity and on such consideration the stay granted after evaluating the balance of convenience, irreparable loss and other considerations, could not be interfered with.

Learned counsel for the petitioners’ points out that not the State Government has been impleaded as party, therefore, the injunction granted be restored.

2 Writ Petition No ::

7909. / 2013 Kemli Bai and others versus General Manager, MPAMr.and others Even though Shri D.N.Shukla tried to emphasize that the State Government was a necessary party and without impleading the State the suit was not maintainable, the fact remains that the dispute pertains to private property and partition of the same between private parties and State was only a formal party.

The learned trial court granted injunction after evaluating the matter, existence of prima facie case and irreparable loss.

The learned appellate court should not have interfered with the said injunction merely because the State was not impleaded as a party.

The order passed by the appellate court as contained in paragraph 17 of the impugned order, vacating the say without evaluating the merits of the matter is unsustainable.

In view of the same, this petition is allowed.

The order passed by the appellate court vacating stay on the ground that the State has not been made a party is quashed.

The stay granted by the trial court is restored and the learned court below is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Kemli Bai vs General Manager Same Subject Land Acquisition