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.

Narbada Prasad Vs. Vijay Ram

Narbada Prasad vs Vijay Ram

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 04, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042943

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

Narbada Prasad

Advocate Shri. R.K.Verma

Respondent

Vijay Ram

Excerpt

1 w.p.no.1816/2013 4.2.2013 shri r.k.verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. challenging the order dated 5.1.2013 annexure p/ 8 passed by the court of xixth civil judge, class i, bhopal whereby the application filed by the petitioner under order xi rule 14 of cpc for producing the original deed of partition from the respondents is rejected, this writ petition has been filed. respondents plaintiffs have filed the suit in question for declaration and permanent injunction and in the said suit at the time of final hearing after all the evidence was recorded, petitioner filed an application for production of the document in question. the court found that apart from the fact that partition deed is not necessary for deciding the controversy, it was found that the application has been filed belatedly at the stage when the suit is fixed for final hearing after recording of evidence and there is direction of the high court for deciding the suit. accordingly finding document need not to be produced, the application filed by the petitioner under order xi rule 14 of cpc was rejected. rejection of the application and reasons given therein by the court below cannot be termed as 2 pervers.or illegal to such an extent that interference into the matter by this court is called for. accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order that may be passed by raising the grounds as may be canvassed in the writ petition, this petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra

Full Judgment

1 W.P.No.1816/2013 4.2.2013 Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Challenging the order dated 5.1.2013 Annexure P/ 8 passed by the Court of XIXth Civil Judge, Class I, Bhopal whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC for producing the original deed of partition from the respondents is rejected, this writ petition has been filed.

Respondents plaintiffs have filed the suit in question for declaration and permanent injunction and in the said suit at the time of final hearing after all the evidence was recorded, petitioner filed an application for production of the document in question.

The Court found that apart from the fact that partition deed is not necessary for deciding the controversy, it was found that the application has been filed belatedly at the stage when the suit is fixed for final hearing after recording of evidence and there is direction of the High Court for deciding the suit.

Accordingly finding document need not to be produced, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC was rejected.

Rejection of the application and reasons given therein by the Court below cannot be termed as 2 perveRs.or illegal to such an extent that interference into the matter by this Court is called for.

Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order that may be passed by raising the grounds as may be canvassed in the writ petition, this petition is dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Mrs.mishra

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial