Dadu Vs. Motilal

Dadu vs Motilal

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 20, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046246

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/1046246
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Mar 20, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dadu

Advocate Shri. Rajesh Dubey

Respondent

Motilal

Advocate Shri. Ajay Ojha

Excerpt

1 w.p. no. 7316 of 2011 20.3.2013 shri rajesh dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri ajay ojha, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. none for other respondents. heard. order dated 17.3.2011 passed by ii civil judge, class ii, waidhan district singrauli in civil suit no. 50 a/2009 is being assailed vide this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india. by impugned order the trial court closed the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence. the suit at the instance of petitioner is for declaration of title in respect of land bearing khasra nos. 118/4, 128/1, 130, 131, 169 situated in waidhan, district singrauli. on 17.3.2011 faced with certain difficulties in producing his witnesses petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under order 17 rule 1, code of civil procedure, 1908 seeking adjournment. the trial court taking into consideration the earlier adjournments rejected the petitioner/plaintiff's application and closed his right to lead evidence. after hearing the learned counsel for parties at length, this court is of considered opinion that in given facts of present case petitioner/plaintiff is entitled for one opportunity to lead evidence; however, not without compensating the respondents. 2 therefore, while setting aside the order dated 17.3.2011, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to payment of cost of rs.500/ to respondent no. 1. in view whereof on the next date fixed before the trial court, the plaintiff shall present all his witnesses for examination and crossexamination. in case of deviancy shown by the petitioner no further adjournment shall be granted and the trial court shall be at liberty to close the right of the petitioner. petition is allowed to the extent above. (sanjay yadav) judge vivek tripathi

Full Judgment

1 W.P. No. 7316 Of 2011 20.3.2013 Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

None for other respondents.

Heard.

Order dated 17.3.2011 passed by II Civil Judge, Class II, Waidhan district Singrauli in Civil Suit No. 50 A/2009 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By impugned order the Trial Court closed the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence.

The suit at the instance of petitioner is for declaration of title in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 118/4, 128/1, 130, 131, 169 situated in Waidhan, district Singrauli.

On 17.3.2011 faced with certain difficulties in producing his witnesses petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking adjournment.

The Trial Court taking into consideration the earlier adjournments rejected the petitioner/plaintiff's application and closed his right to lead evidence.

After hearing the learned counsel for parties at length, this Court is of considered opinion that in given facts of present case petitioner/plaintiff is entitled for one opportunity to lead evidence; however, not without compensating the respondents.

2 Therefore, while setting aside the order dated 17.3.2011, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/ to respondent No. 1.

In view whereof on the next date fixed before the Trial Court, the plaintiff shall present all his witnesses for examination and crossexamination. In case of deviancy shown by the petitioner no further adjournment shall be granted and the trial court shall be at liberty to close the right of the petitioner.

Petition is allowed to the extent above.

(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Dadu vs Motilal Same Subject Education