Veerendra Kumar Soni Vs. Ashok

Veerendra Kumar Soni vs Ashok

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 26, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053318

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/1053318
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 26, 2013
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

Veerendra Kumar Soni

Respondent

Ashok

Excerpt

writ petition no ::7181. / 2013 veerendra kumar soni versus ashok and others 26.04.2013. shri anil dwivedi for the petitioner. challenging an interlocutory order passed by the trial court rejecting an application under order 26 rule 9 cpc, in the matter of appointing a commission for demarcation of the property in question, this writ petition has been filed. respondents 1 to 3 have filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction. in the suit, proceedings for injunction under order 39 rule 1 and 2 cpc is pending and for the purpose of finalizing the question of injunction, petitioner wanted appointment of a commission for demarcation of the property and submission of a report. the said application has been rejected by the court below mainly on the ground that at this stage when proceeding for considering the application for temporary injunction under order 39 rule 1 and 2 is in progress and when only existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is to be seen, appointment of a commission for collecting evidence is not necessary and it is held that the proceeding for temporary injunction can be finalized on the basis of affidavit of the parties. holding so the application has been rejected by saying that for deciding the question of injunction and collecting evidence, the application is not maintainable. the discretion exercised by the court and the reasons given for rejecting the application cannot be termed as pervers.or erroneous to such an extent that interference into the matter is called. accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No ::

7181. / 2013 Veerendra Kumar Soni versus Ashok and others 26.04.2013.

Shri Anil Dwivedi for the petitioner.

Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the trial court rejecting an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, in the matter of appointing a Commission for demarcation of the property in question, this writ petition has been filed.

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction.

In the suit, proceedings for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is pending and for the purpose of finalizing the question of injunction, petitioner wanted appointment of a Commission for demarcation of the property and submission of a report.

The said application has been rejected by the court below mainly on the ground that at this stage when proceeding for considering the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is in progress and when only existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is to be seen, appointment of a Commission for collecting evidence is not necessary and it is held that the proceeding for temporary injunction can be finalized on the basis of affidavit of the parties.

Holding so the application has been rejected by saying that for deciding the question of injunction and collecting evidence, the application is not maintainable.

The discretion exercised by the Court and the reasons given for rejecting the application cannot be termed as perveRs.or erroneous to such an extent that interference into the matter is called.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Veerendra Kumar Soni vs Ashok Same Subject Land Acquisition