Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Brajesh Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumar

Brajesh Kumar vs Santosh Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 19, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049026

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Brajesh Kumar

Advocate Shri. R.S.Tiwari

Respondent

Santosh Kumar

Advocate Shri. Vivek Rusia

Excerpt

1 w.p.no.15473/2013 (i) 19.9.2013. shri r.s.tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri vivek rusia, learned counsel for respondent no.1 & 2. 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 12.8.2013 (ann. p.9) passed by the 1st additional district judge, burhanpur in misc. appeal no.7-a/13, affirming the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by 2nd civil judge, class-ii, burhanpur, whereby his application filed under order 39 rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 of cpc for issuing ad-interim injunction against the respondents/ defendants has been dismissed. in the cours.of the arguments in view of earlier decision of this court in the matter of pyarelal versus nandlal reported in 1982 mpwn 27 so also in view of the provision of section 41 (h) of specific relief act and in the light of section 52 of t.p.act on making certain query, on which instead to argue further the counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate application before the trial court, if the same is necessary either to amend the suit or to withdraw such suit with liberty to file fresh suit with some additional facts and the prayer. other side did not have any objection in permitting the petitioner to withdraw this petition with aforesaid liberty but he said that if any such application is filed then respondents be extended a liberty to oppose the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. 2 in view of the aforesaid without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter by allowing the prayer of the petitioner, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn as not pressed with aforesaid liberties to both the parties, as prayed by their respective counsel.c.c. as per rules. (u.c.maheshwari) judge k

Full Judgment

1 W.P.No.15473/2013 (I) 19.9.2013.

Shri R.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2.

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 12.8.2013 (Ann.

P.9) passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Burhanpur in Misc.

Appeal No.7-A/13, affirming the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Burhanpur, whereby his application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC for issuing ad-interim injunction against the respondents/ defendants has been dismissed.

In the couRs.of the arguments in view of earlier decision of this Court in the matter of Pyarelal versus Nandlal reported in 1982 MPWN 27 so also in view of the provision of Section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act and in the light of Section 52 of T.P.Act on making certain query, on which instead to argue further the counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate application before the trial Court, if the same is necessary either to amend the suit or to withdraw such suit with liberty to file fresh suit with some additional facts and the prayer.

Other side did not have any objection in permitting the petitioner to withdraw this petition with aforesaid liberty but he said that if any such application is filed then respondents be extended a liberty to oppose the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.

2 In view of the aforesaid without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter by allowing the prayer of the petitioner, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn as not pressed with aforesaid liberties to both the parties, as prayed by their respective counsel.C.C.

as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial