Ramashray Vs. Smt. Kusum

Ramashray vs Smt. Kusum

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 07, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/504803

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/504803
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Shantanu Kemkar, J.
Decided On: Jul 07, 2004
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 371 of 2004
Subject: Property;Civil
Disposition: Revision dismissed

Case Summary

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

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ] Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parti...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 10, 114 and 115 - Order 47, Rule 1

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramashray

Advocate M.P. Shukla, Adv.

Respondent

Smt. Kusum

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 10, 114 and 115 - Order 47, Rule 1
Reported In: 2004(3)MPHT488; 2004(3)MPLJ434

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him.....of the code of civil procedure against the order 5-2-2004 passed in civil suit no. 146-a/03 by 3rd civil judge class-ii, rewa, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under section 114 of the code of civil procedure read with order 47 rule 1 of code of civil procedure for review of order dated 5-8-2003 passed on an application filed under section 10 of the code of civil procedure by defendant no. 1/respondent whereby the trial court stayed the plaintiffs suit.3. the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a civil suit no. 146-a/2003 for possession and mandatory injunction in the court of 3rd civil judge, class-ii, rewa. in the said suit the petitioner/plaintiff prayed that he purchased khasra no. 44/1 rakba 8 x 60 sq. ft. from respondent no. 3 thakurdin and the defendant no. 1 has illegally constructed her house on the said land purchased by him and sought the above referred relief's against her.4. on the other hand the respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 had filed a suit in the court of 4th additional district judge, rewa for declaration of the sale-deed executed by respondent no. 3 thakurdin in favour of the plaintiff about the same land to be null and void.5. appreciating the aforesaid averments the trial court found that the matter in issue pending before it is directly and substantially in issue in a suit which was previously instituted by the defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff in the court of 4th additional district judge, rewa and accordingly allowed the application filed by respondent no. 1/defendant and stayed the suit pending disposal of suit by 4th additional district judge, rewa.6. when this order was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner/plaintiff, the trial court vide order dated 5-2-2004 rejected the said prayer for review. hence, this revision.7. i have perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below. in my view the learned trial court while considering the application filed by the respondent no. 1/defendant under section 10.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This is a revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order 5-2-2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 146-A/03 by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for review of order dated 5-8-2003 passed on an application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by defendant No. 1/respondent whereby the Trial Court stayed the plaintiffs suit.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit No. 146-A/2003 for possession and mandatory injunction in the Court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Rewa. In the said suit the petitioner/plaintiff prayed that he purchased Khasra No. 44/1 Rakba 8 x 60 sq. ft. from respondent No. 3 Thakurdin and the defendant No. 1 has illegally constructed her house on the said land purchased by him and sought the above referred relief's against her.

4. On the other hand the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 had filed a suit in the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa for declaration of the sale-deed executed by respondent No. 3 Thakurdin in favour of the plaintiff about the same land to be null and void.

5. Appreciating the aforesaid averments the Trial Court found that the matter in issue pending before it is directly and substantially in issue in a suit which was previously instituted by the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff in the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa and accordingly allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1/defendant and stayed the suit pending disposal of suit by 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa.

6. When this order was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner/plaintiff, the Trial Court vide order dated 5-2-2004 rejected the said prayer for review. Hence, this revision.

7. I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. In my view the learned Trial Court while considering the application filed by the respondent No. 1/defendant under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has rightly held that the matter in issue in the suit pending before it is also directly and substantially in issue in a suit filed by respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 in the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa and the same was instituted prior to the present suit. It is clear that the plaintiff/petitioner is claiming his rights through the sale-deed executed by Thakurdin in his favour and in the suit instituted prior to it before the 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa the defendant prayed for declaration of the very same sale-deed to be null and void. Thus, in my considered view the Trial Court has correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law. The review of the said order has also been rightly rejected.

8. I find no error in the impugned orders. The revision, therefore, being devoid of any merits is dismissed summarily.

C.C. as per rules.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2004 Same Parties Ramashray vs Smt. Kusum Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge Shantanu Kemkar, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 10, 114 and 1...

Property;Civil