Brindavan Vs. Pannalal

Brindavan vs Pannalal

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 08, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053393

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/1053393
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Apr 08, 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

Brindavan

Respondent

Pannalal

Excerpt

writ petition no ::4673. / 2013 brindavan and another versus pannalal and others 08.04.2013. shri r.s.khare for the petitioners.challenge in this writ petition under article 227 of the constitution is made to orders passed by the firs.civil judge class ii, singrauli in civil suit no.58-a/98, by which application filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 under order 7 rule 14 of the code of civil procedure, has been taken on record. petitioners are defendants 1 to 5 in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff with regard to declaration and partition of the suit property. at the stage of final hearing, an application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for taking on record certain documents and this application under order 7 rule 14 cpc having been allowed, petitioners are before this court. it is argued by learned counsel for that in a earlier writ petition filed, certain directions have been issued for disposal of the suit at an earlier date and not by filing the application the matter is being delayed and, therefore, interference be made. a perusal of the order passed by the court below goes to show that in the application under order 7 rule 14 cpc, certain public documents, particularly death certificate and photo- identity card issued by the election commission, were filed and finding these documents to be necessary for disposal of the suit, the application has been allowed. the discretion exercised by the court and the finding recorded by the court that the documents are necessary and merely on the ground of delay the same cannot be rejected, is reasonable and proper finding and 2 writ petition no ::4673. / 2013 brindavan and another versus pannalal and others the same cannot be termed as erroneous, pervers.or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a proceeding under article 227 of the constitution, is called for. accordingly, finding no ground to interfere, the petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No ::

4673. / 2013 Brindavan and another versus Pannalal and others 08.04.2013.

Shri R.S.Khare for the petitioneRs.Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to orders passed by the FiRs.Civil Judge Class II, Singrauli in Civil Suit No.58-A/98, by which application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been taken on record.

Petitioners are defendants 1 to 5 in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff with regard to declaration and partition of the suit property.

At the stage of final hearing, an application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for taking on record certain documents and this application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC having been allowed, petitioners are before this Court.

It is argued by learned counsel for that in a earlier writ petition filed, certain directions have been issued for disposal of the suit at an earlier date and not by filing the application the matter is being delayed and, therefore, interference be made.

A perusal of the order passed by the court below goes to show that in the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, certain public documents, particularly death certificate and photo- identity card issued by the Election Commission, were filed and finding these documents to be necessary for disposal of the suit, the application has been allowed.

The discretion exercised by the Court and the finding recorded by the Court that the documents are necessary and merely on the ground of delay the same cannot be rejected, is reasonable and proper finding and 2 Writ Petition No ::

4673. / 2013 Brindavan and another versus Pannalal and others the same cannot be termed as erroneous, perveRs.or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution, is called for.

Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere, the petition is dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Brindavan vs Pannalal Same Subject Land Acquisition