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.

Sulkanbai and ors Vs. Merkulal and anr

Sulkanbai and ors vs Merkulal and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 01, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1050551

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

Sulkanbai and ors

Advocate Shri. Umesh Trivedi

Respondent

Merkulal and anr

Excerpt

1 firs.appeal no.311/04. 1.8.2012. shri umesh trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. none for the respondents, although served and represented through duly engaged counsel. with permission of the court appellant's counsel has corrected the date of order stated in 4th line of firs.para of ia no.2137/12 whereby he mentioned the date 8.4.2006 at the place of 8.6.2004. the same is certified accordingly. this case is listed today for consideration of ia no.2137/12, appellant's application to substitute the legal representatives of respondent no.1 on record. as per averments of it, after passing away such respondent on 14.3.2006 initially proceeding to bring his legal representatives on record was filed before the executing court in pending execution proceeding of the impugned money decree. such application was allowed and legal representatives of such respondent were brought on record on 8.4.2006. in such premises, the present application is preferred without filing any supporting application under order 22 rule 9 of cpc as well as under section 5 of limitation act. in the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that on payment of p.f.along with requisites of registered post within three working days notice of aforesaid ia no.2137/12, returnable by fixing a date in the month of september, 2012 be issued to the proposed legal representatives of respondent no.1 mention in such ia, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. (u.c.maheshwari) judge k

Full Judgment

1 FIRs.APPEAL No.311/04.

1.8.2012.

Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondents, although served and represented through duly engaged counsel.

With permission of the Court appellant's counsel has corrected the date of order stated in 4th line of fiRs.para of IA No.2137/12 whereby he mentioned the date 8.4.2006 at the place of 8.6.2004.

The same is certified accordingly.

This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.2137/12, appellant's application to substitute the legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record.

As per averments of it, after passing away such respondent on 14.3.2006 initially proceeding to bring his legal representatives on record was filed before the executing Court in pending execution proceeding of the impugned money decree.

Such application was allowed and legal representatives of such respondent were brought on record on 8.4.2006.

In such premises, the present application is preferred without filing any supporting application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC as well as under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that on payment of P.F.along with requisites of registered post within three working days notice of aforesaid IA No.2137/12, returnable by fixing a date in the month of September, 2012 be issued to the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 mention in such IA, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial