Parasmal JaIn Vs. State of Raj. and ors

Parasmal Jain vs State of Raj. and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Dec 19, 2012

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/973405

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/973405
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: Dec 19, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parasmal Jain

Respondent

State of Raj. and ors

Excerpt

1 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur s.b. civil writ petition no.11873/2012 (parasmal jain vs. state of raj. & ors.) date of order :19. 12.2012 hon'ble mr justice gopal krishan vyas none present for the petitioner. i have perused the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 whereby the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent no.4. under order 1 rule 10 cpc. learned trial court observed in the order that respondent no.4 is necessary party to adjudicate the controversy. i am satisfied with the reasons given by the trial court in allowing the application filed by the respondent no.4 under order 1 rule 10 cpc. therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. (gopal krishan vyas), j.arun

Full Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11873/2012 (Parasmal Jain Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order :

19. 12.2012 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS None present for the petitioner. I have perused the impugned order dated 12.10.2012 whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent No.4. under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Learned trial Court observed in the order that respondent No.4 is necessary party to adjudicate the controversy. I am satisfied with the reasons given by the trial Court in allowing the application filed by the respondent No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.

arun

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2012 Same Parties Parasmal Jain vs State of Raj. and ors Same Subject Education