Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ronya Vs. Funda Bai

Ronya vs Funda Bai

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 25, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1089749

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
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

Ronya

Advocate Shri. S.K.Dwivedi

Respondent

Funda Bai

Excerpt

.....this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.13 anenx.p-7 passed by ii adj.multai in ma no.7-a/13 affirming the order dated 7.3.13 annex.p-6 passed by i civil judge-ii,multai in co.no.3-a/13 whereby the petitioners application filed under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the cpc for issuing ad interim injunction restraining the respondents to interfere in possession of the petitioners with respect of the disputed land and also to restrain the revenue court to hold the proceedings filed under section 178 of the madhya pradesh land revenue code,1959 with respect of the same land, has been dismissed. 2. in the cours.of the arguments, after arguing for some time, in response of some query of the court, petitioners counsel has made his limited prayer for appropriate direction against the respondents restraining them to transfer, alienate or create any third party interest with respect of the disputed property till pendency of the suit. 3. in view of such limited prayer, on asking the counsel whether such prayer has been made in the impugned application, on which, after perusing the same he said that no such specific prayer has been made in the application annex.p-2, on which, on asking whether in the available circumstances, in the lack of the prayer in the application whether the aforesaid limited prayer could be considered in the writ jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india and at the firs.time without pleading such prayer could be considered by this bench, on which, the petitioners counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to file the appropriate application before the trial court for issuing ad interim injunction against the private respondents restraining them to transfer, alienate or create any third party interest with respect of the 2 w.p no.15638 of 2013 disputed property till pendency of the suit with a further prayer for appropriate direction to protect the right of the petitioner till deciding the.....

Full Judgment

1 W.P No.15638 of 2013 25.9.2013 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission.

The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.13 Anenx.P-7 passed by II ADJ.Multai in MA No.7-A/13 affirming the order dated 7.3.13 Annex.P-6 passed by I Civil Judge-II,Multai in Co.No.3-A/13 whereby the petitioners application filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuing ad interim injunction restraining the respondents to interfere in possession of the petitioners with respect of the disputed land and also to restrain the revenue court to hold the proceedings filed under section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,1959 with respect of the same land, has been dismissed.

2.

In the couRs.of the arguments, after arguing for some time, in response of some query of the court, petitioners counsel has made his limited prayer for appropriate direction against the respondents restraining them to transfer, alienate or create any third party interest with respect of the disputed property till pendency of the suit.

3.

In view of such limited prayer, on asking the counsel whether such prayer has been made in the impugned application, on which, after perusing the same he said that no such specific prayer has been made in the application Annex.P-2, on which, on asking whether in the available circumstances, in the lack of the prayer in the application whether the aforesaid limited prayer could be considered in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and at the fiRs.time without pleading such prayer could be considered by this bench, on which, the petitioners counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed with liberty to file the appropriate application before the trial court for issuing ad interim injunction against the private respondents restraining them to transfer, alienate or create any third party interest with respect of the 2 W.P No.15638 of 2013 disputed property till pendency of the suit with a further prayer for appropriate direction to protect the right of the petitioner till deciding the aforesaid application by the trial court.

4.

On consideration, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the impugned ordeRs.this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed by extending the liberty to the petitioners to file the aforesaid applications for which the limited prayer is made before this court.

Pursuant to it, the trial court is directed that on filing such application on behalf of the petitioneRs.the same be considered on its own merits and after extending the opportunity to the other side and pass appropriate order to protect the interest of both the parties without influencing from any observation or findings given by such court in the impugned order or by this court in the present order.

It is further directed that if such application is filed within 15 days from today then the same be considered and decided on its own merits as directed above within further 30 days.

It is also observed that in any case, the parties shall be governed with the provision of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

C.C as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial