Dhanraj Vs. Hukumchand

Dhanraj vs Hukumchand

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 19, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049034

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/1049034
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 19, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dhanraj

Advocate Shri. Pushpendra Dubey

Respondent

Hukumchand

Excerpt

1 w.p.no.15336/2013 (i) 19.9.2013. shri pushpendra dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri amit sharma, learned p.l.for the respondent no.2. heard on the question of admission. the petitioner has filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india being aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by civil judge, class-ii amla district betul in c.s.no.19- a/2012, whereby his application under order 6 rule 17 of cpc to amend the plaint in relation of some facts has been dismissed holding that proposed pleadings being matter of evidence, are not necessary to plead in the plaint. having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments perused the papers placed on record, i have not found any illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in dismissing the aforesaid application of the petitioner. hence, the same is not required any interference under the writ jurisdiction. however, this petition is disposed of with an observation that petitioner shall be at liberty to adduce the evidence and also cross-examine the witnesses of the other side on the facts which have been stated by the petitioner in the impugned application (ann. p.4) filed order 6 rule 17 of cpc. as such petitioner shall not be deprived to adduce the evidence on such question on account of dismissal of the impugned application.c.c. as per rules. (u.c.maheshwari) judge k

Full Judgment

1 W.P.No.15336/2013 (I) 19.9.2013.

Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P.L.for the respondent No.2.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II Amla District Betul in C.S.No.19- A/2012, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint in relation of some facts has been dismissed holding that proposed pleadings being matter of evidence, are not necessary to plead in the plaint.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments perused the papers placed on record, I have not found any illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in dismissing the aforesaid application of the petitioner.

Hence, the same is not required any interference under the writ jurisdiction.

However, this petition is disposed of with an observation that petitioner shall be at liberty to adduce the evidence and also cross-examine the witnesses of the other side on the facts which have been stated by the petitioner in the impugned application (Ann.

P.4) filed Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.

As such petitioner shall not be deprived to adduce the evidence on such question on account of dismissal of the impugned application.C.C.

as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Dhanraj vs Hukumchand Same Subject Education