Kailash Bai Vs. Phool Singh

Kailash Bai vs Phool Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 24, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049869

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/1049869
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 24, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kailash Bai

Respondent

Phool Singh

Excerpt

.....india, the petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 have challenged the 2 w.p. 8802/2013 validity of the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 by which their right to adduce evidence has been closed.2. the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 is that on 20.02.2013 the first defendant adduced his evidence and on the very next date 01.03.2013, the right to adduce evidence of defendants 3 to 5 has been closed. thereafter on 08.03.2013 an application under order 18 rule 17(a) cpc read with order 7 rule 14 (3) cpc was submitted and the case was listed for its consideration on 15.3.2013. learned counsel submits that on the very first day the right to adduce evidence of defendants 3 to 5 has been closed.3. according to me, the court has directed all the defendants to adduce evidence and fixed 10.12.2012, 11.01.2013 and 20.02.2013 but on 20.02.2013 defendants no.3 to 5 were not present. on the contrary, on the prayer made by learned counsel for these defendants time was given. ultimately, on 01.03.2013 the learned trial court closed the right to adduce evidence of these defendants.4. on going through the impugned order i do not find any illegality or perversity in it. however, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is provided to petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 to adduce their evidence on deposition of cost of rs. 2000/-. let the cost be deposited on or before 19.8.2013 and the amount of cost may be withdrawn by the plaintiffs. after deposition of the cost, 3 w.p. 8802/2013 the petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 may adduce their evidence on 19.8.2013.5. with the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. the impugned order is set aside. (a.k. shrivastava) judge rao 4 w.p. 8802/2013

Full Judgment

1 W.P. 8802/2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Single Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA W.P. No.8802/2013 PETITIONERS 1 Kailash Bai, W/o late Karodilal 2. Ajay, S/o late Karodilal 3. Ku. Sangita, D/o late Karodilal All R/o Vishwakarma Nagar, Karond Chouraha, near Post Office, Bhanpur Byepass Road, Bhopal, M.P. Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Phool Singh, S/o late Khushilal, R/o Village Karond Kala, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal, M.P.

2. Umri Bai, W/o late Khushilal 3. Ramesh, S/o late Khushilal Respondents no.2 and 3 both residents of Thakur Mohalla, Purana Gaon, Pipal Chouraha, Karond, Barasiya Road, Bhopal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioners by - Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate. Respondents by - Shri Manot Chaturvedi, Advocate ORDER

( 24/07/2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 have challenged the 2 W.P. 8802/2013 validity of the impugned order dated 01.03.2013 by which their right to adduce evidence has been closed.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 is that on 20.02.2013 the first defendant adduced his evidence and on the very next date 01.03.2013, the right to adduce evidence of defendants 3 to 5 has been closed. Thereafter on 08.03.2013 an application under Order 18 Rule 17(a) CPC read with Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC was submitted and the case was listed for its consideration on 15.3.2013. Learned counsel submits that on the very first day the right to adduce evidence of defendants 3 to 5 has been closed.

3. According to me, the Court has directed all the defendants to adduce evidence and fixed 10.12.2012, 11.01.2013 and 20.02.2013 but on 20.02.2013 defendants no.3 to 5 were not present. On the contrary, on the prayer made by learned counsel for these defendants time was given. Ultimately, on 01.03.2013 the learned trial Court closed the right to adduce evidence of these defendants.

4. On going through the impugned order I do not find any illegality or perversity in it. However, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is provided to petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 to adduce their evidence on deposition of cost of Rs. 2000/-. Let the cost be deposited on or before 19.8.2013 and the amount of cost may be withdrawn by the plaintiffs. After deposition of the cost, 3 W.P. 8802/2013 the petitioners/defendants no.3 to 5 may adduce their evidence on 19.8.2013.

5. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. The impugned order is set aside. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 4 W.P. 8802/2013

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Kailash Bai vs Phool Singh Same Subject Education