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.

Mohd. Bahar Vs. Mohd. Safi

Mohd. Bahar vs Mohd. Safi

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 19, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049033

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. Bahar

Advocate Shri. P.K.Saxena

Respondent

Mohd. Safi

Advocate Shri. Sanjay Singh

Excerpt

writ petition no.15949/2013 (i) 19.09.2013 shri p.k.saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners.shri sanjay singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1. shri amit sharma, learned pl for respondent no.8. heard. the petitioners.plaintiffs have filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india being aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2013, passed by iiird civil judge, class-i, sidhi in co.no.86-a/13, whereby their objection taken in examination in chief of the defendant -witness anup singh, on marking exhibit on some sale deed has been overruled and the respondents- defendants were permitted to mark exhibit on such documents as ex. d-1. in the cours.of arguments, in the available circumstances on asking the counsel that what error has been committed by the trial court in permitting the respondent to mark the exhibit on the aforesaid sale deed as exhibit d-1 in the deposition of aforesaid witness of anup singh when apparently as alleged he is an attesting witness of the execution of such document and the party has a right to examine the attesting witness in support of such document, on which instead to argue further, petitioners.counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed at this stage with liberty to challenge impugned order of the trial court permitting the defendants to mark exhibit on aforesaid document in the deposition of aforesaid witness subject to final judgment and decree of the trial court on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal. considering the aforesaid prayer, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty, aforesaid. there shall no order as to costs. (u.c.maheshwari) judge bks

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.15949/2013 (I) 19.09.2013 Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned PL for respondent no.8.

Heard.

The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2013, passed by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-I, Sidhi in Co.No.86-A/13, whereby their objection taken in examination in chief of the defendant -witness Anup Singh, on marking exhibit on some sale deed has been overruled and the respondents- defendants were permitted to mark exhibit on such documents as Ex.

D-1.

In the couRs.of arguments, in the available circumstances on asking the counsel that what error has been committed by the trial court in permitting the respondent to mark the exhibit on the aforesaid sale deed as exhibit D-1 in the deposition of aforesaid witness of Anup Singh when apparently as alleged he is an attesting witness of the execution of such document and the party has a right to examine the attesting witness in support of such document, on which instead to argue further, petitioneRs.counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed at this stage with liberty to challenge impugned order of the trial court permitting the defendants to mark exhibit on aforesaid document in the deposition of aforesaid witness subject to final judgment and decree of the trial court on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal.

Considering the aforesaid prayer, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty, aforesaid.

There shall no order as to costs.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial