Buddha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Buddha vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 25, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1047390

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/1047390
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 25, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Buddha

Advocate Shri. Atul Anand Awasthy

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

buddha & another versus state of m.p.& others writ petition no.2710 ”25. 2.2013: shri atul anand awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioners.shri sanjeev kumar singh, learned panel lawyer for the state. challenging order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the civil judge class-i niwadi, district tikamgarh, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under order xxvi rule 9 cpc, this writ petition has been filed. petitioners are plaintiffs and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. in the said suit an application filed by the petitioners for appointment of commission to conduct inspection and submit report is rejected merely on the ground that the dispute in question can be considered by recording of evidence and for the purpose of collecting evidence, at this stage, appointment of commission is not necessary. rejection of application under order xxvi rule 9 cpc on the grounds and reasons as indicated hereinabove cannot be termed as pervers.or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a proceeding under article 227 of the constitution is called for. accordingly, finding no ground for interference, the petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge ss/

Full Judgment

Buddha & Another versus State of M.P.& Others Writ Petition No.2710 ”

25. 2.2013: Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

Challenging order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, this writ petition has been filed.

Petitioners are plaintiffs and has filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction.

In the said suit an application filed by the petitioners for appointment of commission to conduct inspection and submit report is rejected merely on the ground that the dispute in question can be considered by recording of evidence and for the purpose of collecting evidence, at this stage, appointment of commission is not necessary.

Rejection of application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC on the grounds and reasons as indicated hereinabove cannot be termed as perveRs.or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a proceeding under article 227 of the Constitution is called for.

Accordingly, finding no ground for interference, the petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Buddha vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education