Seetal Singh Vs. Satwinder Singh and Others

Seetal Singh vs Satwinder Singh and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jan 23, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/953291

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/953291
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: N. Ananda
Decided On: Jan 23, 2013
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2224 of 2013 (GM-CPC)
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Seetal Singh

Respondent

Satwinder Singh and Others

Excerpt

1. the second defendant had sought for stay of the proceedings on the ground that plea of tenancy is pending consideration. 2. heard the learned counsel for parties. 3. the second defendant had made an application to the assistant, commissioner, pandavapura, under sections 80 and 83 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 somewhere in the month of november 2012. 4. it is needless to state that form 7-a should have been filed within the extended period under the relevant, provisions of the karnataka land reforms act before the jurisdictional tribunal. the defendant by filing the application before the assistant commissioner, pandavapura in the month of november 2012 cannot contend that plea of tenancy is pending and the trial court should not proceed with the suit. therefore there is no merit in the petition. the petition is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The second defendant had sought for stay of the proceedings on the ground that plea of tenancy is pending consideration.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for parties.

3. The second defendant had made an application to the Assistant, Commissioner, Pandavapura, under Sections 80 and 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 somewhere in the month of November 2012.

4. It is needless to state that Form 7-A should have been filed within the extended period under the relevant, provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act before the jurisdictional Tribunal. The defendant by filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura in the month of November 2012 cannot contend that plea of tenancy is pending and the Trial Court should not proceed with the suit. Therefore there is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2013 Same Parties Seetal Singh vs Satwinder Singh and Others Same Subject Education Same Judge N. Ananda