Vijay Kumar Vs. Subhash Jain

Vijay Kumar vs Subhash Jain

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 08, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048733

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/1048733
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Oct 08, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vijay Kumar

Advocate Shri. R.S.Yadav

Respondent

Subhash Jain

Excerpt

.....on the question of admission. the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india being aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.12 passed ii civil judge-ii, katni in c.s.no.229-a/08 whereby his application filed under order 26 rule 9 of the cpc for appointment of commissioner to inspect the disputed place and submit its report, has been dismissed. initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner counsel on admission but in the cours.of such arguments on asking the counsel how the petitioner could be permitted to use the process of the court as an agency for him to collect the evidence through commissioner unless some ambiguity appears from the evidence led by the parties, on which, instead to argue further, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition at this stage with liberty to file fresh application for spot inspect after recording the evidence of both the parties if some ambiguity appears from such evidence with a further prayer for appropriate direction to the trial court that on filing such an application after recording the evidence of both the parties then the same be considered and decided by such court in the light of the recorded evidence. considering the aforesaid prayer, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn by extending the aforesaid liberty. however, the trial court is directed that after closing the evidence of both the parties, by mentioning the ambiguity in the recorded evidence, if such application is filed then the trial court shall consider and decide the same on its own merits on the basis of the recorded evidence without influencing from any observation or findings given by such court in the order impugned. however, the respondents are extended liberty to approach this court with appropriate proceedings or application if they are/ or any of them is, aggrieved from this order or any part of it. petition is dismissed with aforesaid liberty and direction. (u.c.maheshwari) judge mkl

Full Judgment

W.P.No.15336 o”

08. 10.12 Shri R.S.Yadav, counsel for the petitioner.

He is heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.12 passed II Civil Judge-II, Katni in C.S.No.229-A/08 whereby his application filed under Order 26 rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the disputed place and submit its report, has been dismissed.

Initially the case was argued at length by the petitioner counsel on admission but in the couRs.of such arguments on asking the counsel how the petitioner could be permitted to use the process of the court as an agency for him to collect the evidence through Commissioner unless some ambiguity appears from the evidence led by the parties, on which, instead to argue further, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition at this stage with liberty to file fresh application for spot inspect after recording the evidence of both the parties if some ambiguity appears from such evidence with a further prayer for appropriate direction to the trial court that on filing such an application after recording the evidence of both the parties then the same be considered and decided by such court in the light of the recorded evidence.

Considering the aforesaid prayer, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn by extending the aforesaid liberty.

However, the trial court is directed that after closing the evidence of both the parties, by mentioning the ambiguity in the recorded evidence, if such application is filed then the trial court shall consider and decide the same on its own merits on the basis of the recorded evidence without influencing from any observation or findings given by such court in the order impugned.

However, the respondents are extended liberty to approach this court with appropriate proceedings or application if they are/ or any of them is, aggrieved from this order or any part of it.

Petition is dismissed with aforesaid liberty and direction.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Vijay Kumar vs Subhash Jain Same Subject Land Acquisition