Ramvichar Vishwakarma Vs. Ranjit Vishwakarma

Ramvichar Vishwakarma vs Ranjit Vishwakarma

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 18, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1054528

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/1054528
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jun 18, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramvichar Vishwakarma

Advocate Shri. A.P.Shah

Respondent

Ranjit Vishwakarma

Advocate Shri. P.S.Gaharwar

Excerpt

.....whereby some part of the amendment application (ann. p.2) was allowed and for remaining part the same has been dismissed. after perusing the averments of the plaint (ann. p.1).i am of the considered view that in the existing pleading of the plaint, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the aforesaid application in part because such part of the amendment application was not in consonance of existing pleading of the plaint either as on additional approach or as subsequent events after filing the suit. in such premises such rejected part of the application was not relevant with the matter. 2 although the petitioner's counsel in support of his arguments placed his reliance on a reported decision of the apex court in the matter of abdul rehman & anr versus ruldu & ors reported in 2012 air (scw) 5419, but on perusing the same the cited case being based on some different facts and circumstances is not helping to the applicant because in the instant case there is no foundation in the original pleading of the plaint from which the rejected part of the amendment application could be treated to be the additional approach or the subsequent event in existing pleadings. in view of aforesaid discussion, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. (u.c.maheshwari) judge k

Full Judgment

1 Writ Petition No.4035/13.

18.6.2013.

Shri A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri P.S.Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 7, 9 to 10 and 15 to 16.

Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the respondent No.14/ State.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II Waidhan District Singroli in C.S.No.157-A/2009 whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed in part.

Having heard the counsel of the petitioner at length keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through averments of the petition and the papers placed on record as well as the impugned order whereby some part of the amendment application (Ann.

P.2) was allowed and for remaining part the same has been dismissed.

After perusing the averments of the plaint (Ann.

P.1).I am of the considered view that in the existing pleading of the plaint, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the aforesaid application in part because such part of the amendment application was not in consonance of existing pleading of the plaint either as on additional approach or as subsequent events after filing the suit.

In such premises such rejected part of the application was not relevant with the matter.

2 Although the petitioner's counsel in support of his arguments placed his reliance on a reported decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Abdul Rehman & Anr versus Ruldu & Ors reported in 2012 AIR (SCW) 5419, but on perusing the same the cited case being based on some different facts and circumstances is not helping to the applicant because in the instant case there is no foundation in the original pleading of the plaint from which the rejected part of the amendment application could be treated to be the additional approach or the subsequent event in existing pleadings.

In view of aforesaid discussion, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Ramvichar Vishwakarma vs Ranjit Vishwakarma Same Subject Education