Gyanlal Vs. Maniram

Gyanlal vs Maniram

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 14, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1045708

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/1045708
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Mar 14, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gyanlal

Advocate Shri. Manish Trivedi

Respondent

Maniram

Advocate Shri. Rohit Jain

Excerpt

misc. appeal no.358/2011 14.03.2013: shri manish trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. shri rohit jain, learned counsel for respondent. this appeal has been filed by the appellant arising out of an order passed by the presiding officer, family court, shahdol in having dismissed the application moved by the appellant under order 9 rule 13 of cpc. the proceedings from where application was filed, arose out of a petition filed by the respondent under section 6 of the guardian and ward act as also under section 9 of the hindu marriage act. an exparte decree was passed against the appellant on both counts. she, then, filed application under order 9 rule 13 of cpc but the said application was dismissed. it is against that order, the appellant has come before this court by filing this appeal. shri manish trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that some compromise has been reached between the parties, inasmuch as, the appellant is no. residing with her husband i.e. respondent. shri rohit jain, learned counsel for respondent, is unable to deny this fact. he also submits that he is no. getting instructions from his client. in these circumstances, taking the statement of learned counsel for the appellant on record, the appeal becomes infructuous. however, the need arise, the appellant shall be entitled to seek restoration of this appeal within limitation. with the aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of. there shall be no order as to cost. (m.c. garg) judge ts

Full Judgment

Misc. Appeal No.358/2011 14.03.2013: Shri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for respondent.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant arising out of an order passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Shahdol in having dismissed the application moved by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. The proceedings from where application was filed, arose out of a petition filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Guardian and Ward Act as also under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

An exparte decree was passed against the appellant on both counts. She, then, filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC but the said application was dismissed. It is against that order, the appellant has come before this Court by filing this appeal. Shri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that some compromise has been reached between the parties, inasmuch as, the appellant is No. residing with her husband i.e. respondent. Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for respondent, is unable to deny this fact.

He also submits that he is No. getting instructions from his client. In these circumstances, taking the statement of learned counsel for the appellant on record, the appeal becomes infructuous.

However, the need arise, the appellant shall be entitled to seek restoration of this appeal within limitation. With the aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost. (M.C. Garg) Judge ts

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Gyanlal vs Maniram Same Subject Education