Arvind Kumar Vs. Rakesh Singhai

Arvind Kumar vs Rakesh Singhai

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 22, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053956

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/1053956
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 22, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arvind Kumar

Respondent

Rakesh Singhai

Excerpt

.....declaration of his bhumiswami right and permanent injunction. petitioner had filed the application for amendment and the same has been rejected by the learned court. by the amendment petitioner wanted to incorporate a pleading to the effect that, on 10.10.2012, the plaintiff has dispossessed the petitioner from the area in question and, therefore, petitioner wanted to amend the pleadings and seek restoration of possession. the court has taken note of the application and found that the suit is pending since 2007 and for the present both the parties are in possession of their respective area and an injunction has been granted to the plaintiff in a proceeding held under order 39 rules 1 and 2, in the year 2007. appeal and writ petition filed have also been dismissed and direction for status quo has been passed by the high court in a writ petition. it is stated that even though time has been granted to the defendant/petitioner to lead evidence, but till 26.9.2012 evidence has not been led and the matter is being prolonged. 2 writ petition no :19432. / 2012 arvind kumar versus rakesh sighai and another finding that the application has been filed for delaying the proceedings, the application is rejected. rejection of the application for the reasons as indicated hereinabove cannot be termed as perverse, illegal or erroneous 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 :

19432. / 2012 Arvind Kumar versus Rakesh Sighai and another 22.02.2013.

Shri Abhijit Bhoumick for the petitioner.

This petition was filed on 9.11.2012, it is yet to be admitted and even notices have not been issued.

Petitioner is defendant and has filed this writ petition challenging an order-dated 18.10.2012, passed by Civil Judge Class I, Bina in Civil Suit No.163-A/2010, rejecting an application for amendment filed by the petitioner.

Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the suit in question for declaration of his Bhumiswami right and permanent injunction.

Petitioner had filed the application for amendment and the same has been rejected by the learned court.

By the amendment petitioner wanted to incorporate a pleading to the effect that, on 10.10.2012, the plaintiff has dispossessed the petitioner from the area in question and, therefore, petitioner wanted to amend the pleadings and seek restoration of possession.

The Court has taken note of the application and found that the suit is pending since 2007 and for the present both the parties are in possession of their respective area and an injunction has been granted to the plaintiff in a proceeding held under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, in the year 2007.

Appeal and writ petition filed have also been dismissed and direction for status quo has been passed by the High Court in a writ petition.

It is stated that even though time has been granted to the defendant/petitioner to lead evidence, but till 26.9.2012 evidence has not been led and the matter is being prolonged.

2 Writ Petition No :

19432. / 2012 Arvind Kumar versus Rakesh Sighai and another Finding that the application has been filed for delaying the proceedings, the application is rejected.

Rejection of the application for the reasons as indicated hereinabove cannot be termed as perverse, illegal or erroneous 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 Arvind Kumar vs Rakesh Singhai Same Subject Education