Shiv Ram Vs. Kailash Singh

Shiv Ram vs Kailash Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 30, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1052161

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/1052161
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Oct 30, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shiv Ram

Advocate Shri. Anuvaed Shrivastava

Respondent

Kailash Singh

Excerpt

.....after taking me through the application (ann. p.4).proceeding dated 28.7.2012 (ann. p.5) and impugned decree (ann. p.6) argued that without considering his right the impugned compromise between respondent no.1 to 6 and 29, 30 was allowed and accordingly the decree was passed by the trial court. in continuation he also said that respondent no.1 to 6 were wrongly permitted to withdraw the suit against the present petitioner and prayed for admission and allowing the petition. in the cours.of the argument on asking the petitioner's counsel when the respondent no.1 to 6 the principal plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit against the petitioner and some of the defendants, as stated above then what error has been committed by the trial court and in which manner the present petitioner has been aggrieved 2 by the present decree when no order or decree has been passed against him and he has a independent cause of action to file the appropriate separate proceedings before the appropriate forum or the court to declare his right and also the other relief permissible under the law, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh suit on the available cause of action against the respondents. considering aforesaid prayer the petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.c.c. as per rules. (u.c.maheshwari) judge k

Full Judgment

1 W.P.No.16879/2012 30.10.2012.

Shri Anuvaed Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner/ defendant No.3 has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the impugned order dated 28.7.201 (Ann.

P.2) passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Lakhnadaun whereby the compromise filed by the respondent No.1 to 6/ the plaintiffs and respondent No.29 and 30 has been allowed and accordingly the compromise decree was passed.

It is noted that before allowing the compromise the respondent No.1 to 6/ the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit against the petitioner/ defendant No.3 and respondent No.7 to 27 who were impleaded in the suit as defendants.

The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the application (Ann.

P.4).proceeding dated 28.7.2012 (Ann.

P.5) and impugned decree (Ann.

P.6) argued that without considering his right the impugned compromise between respondent No.1 to 6 and 29, 30 was allowed and accordingly the decree was passed by the trial Court.

In continuation he also said that respondent No.1 to 6 were wrongly permitted to withdraw the suit against the present petitioner and prayed for admission and allowing the petition.

In the couRs.of the argument on asking the petitioner's counsel when the respondent No.1 to 6 the principal plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit against the petitioner and some of the defendants, as stated above then what error has been committed by the trial Court and in which manner the present petitioner has been aggrieved 2 by the present decree when no order or decree has been passed against him and he has a independent cause of action to file the appropriate separate proceedings before the appropriate forum or the Court to declare his right and also the other relief permissible under the law, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file fresh suit on the available cause of action against the respondents.

Considering aforesaid prayer the petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.C.C.

as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Shiv Ram vs Kailash Singh Same Subject Education