Kailash Vs. Mohit Yadav

Kailash vs Mohit Yadav

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 14, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1052542

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/1052542
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Dec 14, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kailash

Advocate Shri. Jaideep Sirpurkar

Respondent

Mohit Yadav

Excerpt

.....of admission. the petitioner/defendant has filed this petition for quashment of the part of the order dated 21.11.2012, passed by iiird civil judge class-ii chhindwara, in civil original suit no.36-a/2012, whereby his application filed under order 14 rule 5 of cpc has been dismissed in part while allowing the same in part three additional issues have been framed by the trial court. as per submission of the petitioner’s counsel in the light of specific pleadings of the petitioner/defendant in his written statement regarding advers.possession according to which, he has perfected the title over the property by advers.possession, no specific issue has been framed by the trial court and no specific reasons for not framing such issue has been assigned in the order. in addition, it was argued that specific issue on the question of jurisdiction of the court over the matter on the basis of valuation of the suit property has also not been framed. according to his submission, such pleadings of written statement is not covered by the framed issues. the question of advers.possession which has been raised by the petitioner in his written statement is a material defence of the petitioner and on that question the issue is necessary so the party may adduce their evidence accordingly and, therefore, the petitioner is directed to file the fresh application before the trial court to frame the issue on the aforesaid question of advers.possession and the trial court is directed that on filing such an application, the same shall be considered and after extending the opportunity of hearing to the other side frame additional issue on the question of advers.possession in the light of pleadings of the written statement of the petitioner. so far as other question that no issue has been framed by the court regarding jurisdiction of the trial court on the basis of valuation of the property and the deficit court fees accordingly is concerned, i am of the view that such question is.....

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.20462/12.

14.12.2012 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner/defendant has filed this petition for quashment of the part of the order dated 21.11.2012, passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II Chhindwara, in Civil Original Suit No.36-A/2012, whereby his application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC has been dismissed in part while allowing the same in part three additional issues have been framed by the trial Court.

As per submission of the petitioner’s counsel in the light of specific pleadings of the petitioner/defendant in his written statement regarding adveRs.possession according to which, he has perfected the title over the property by adveRs.possession, no specific issue has been framed by the trial Court and no specific reasons for not framing such issue has been assigned in the order.

In addition, it was argued that specific issue on the question of jurisdiction of the Court over the matter on the basis of valuation of the suit property has also not been framed.

According to his submission, such pleadings of written statement is not covered by the framed issues.

The question of adveRs.possession which has been raised by the petitioner in his written statement is a material defence of the petitioner and on that question the issue is necessary so the party may adduce their evidence accordingly and, therefore, the petitioner is directed to file the fresh application before the trial Court to frame the issue on the aforesaid question of adveRs.possession and the trial Court is directed that on filing such an application, the same shall be considered and after extending the opportunity of hearing to the other side frame additional issue on the question of adveRs.possession in the light of pleadings of the written statement of the petitioner.

So far as other question that no issue has been framed by the Court regarding jurisdiction of the trial Court on the basis of valuation of the property and the deficit Court fees accordingly is concerned, I am of the view that such question is covered by the existing newly issue no.7 and the parties may adduce the evidence on such question in the light of issue no.7.

With the aforesaid directions, liberty and observations, this petition is disposed of, however, the respondents/plaintiff is extended a liberty to approach this Court with appropriate application or petition if he is aggrieved by this Order or any part of it.

Certified copy as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Kailash vs Mohit Yadav Same Subject Education