Kamal Vs. Leelavati

Kamal vs Leelavati

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 24, 2012

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1043770

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/1043770
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 24, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kamal

Respondent

Leelavati

Excerpt

c.r.no.278/2012 24.09.2012 shri ramashankar yadav, advocate for the applicants. being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the civil judge, class-ii, parasiya in c.s.no.22-a/12 rejecting the application under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure filed by the defendants- applicants, this revision has been preferred. on perusal of the record it reveals that in the application issue regarding limitation and cause of action was raised. the trial court considering the material available on record directed that the said issue can be decided after recording evidence because it is a mixed question of law and fact. accordingly the application was rejected. after hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and on perusal of the finding so recorded, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the said application. accordingly, the revision is rejected notwithstanding the fact that it is barred by time. (j.k.maheshwari) judge ap

Full Judgment

C.R.No.278/2012 24.09.2012 Shri Ramashankar Yadav, Advocate for the applicants.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Parasiya in C.S.No.22-A/12 rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants- applicants, this revision has been preferred.

On perusal of the record it reveals that in the application issue regarding limitation and cause of action was raised.

The trial Court considering the material available on record directed that the said issue can be decided after recording evidence because it is a mixed question of law and fact.

Accordingly the application was rejected.

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and on perusal of the finding so recorded, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the said application.

Accordingly, the revision is rejected notwithstanding the fact that it is barred by time.

(J.K.Maheshwari) Judge ap

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Kamal vs Leelavati Same Subject Education