Nijanand Bramhachari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1046481
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnApr-12-2013
AppellantNijanand Bramhachari
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
w.p.no.1246/2012 12/04/2013 smt. neelam goel, learned counsel for the petitioners.shri harpreet ruprah, learned counsel for the respondents. an application filed by the petitioners under order 1 rule 10 c.p.c.in a pending proceedings has been rejected and, therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition. it is the case of the petitioners that petitioners.right to the property is available and placing reliance on two orders passed by the writ court in firs.appeal no.69/2009 and certain other cases, wherein person similarly situated has been permitted to participate in the proceedings, this application is filed. shri harpreet ruprah, learned counsel indicated that except for contending that the petitioners have a right to the property in question, nothing is indicated as to how and on what basis, petitioners.right to the property arises, no application is filed and in rejecting the application under order 1 rule 10 c.p.c., it is argued that no error is committed. having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the claim of the petitioner is based on certain orders passed in firs.appeal no.69/2009 on 13.5.2011, wherein similar relief has been allowed. if that be so, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file the application under order 1 rule 10 c.p.c.and the learned court is directed to reconsider the application and decide it again in accordance with law. with the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge nd
Judgment:

W.P.No.1246/2012 12/04/2013 Smt.

Neelam Goel, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondents.

An application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.in a pending proceedings has been rejected and, therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioneRs.right to the property is available and placing reliance on two orders passed by the writ court in FiRs.Appeal No.69/2009 and certain other cases, wherein person similarly situated has been permitted to participate in the proceedings, this application is filed.

Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel indicated that except for contending that the petitioners have a right to the property in question, nothing is indicated as to how and on what basis, petitioneRs.right to the property arises, no application is filed and in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., it is argued that no error is committed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the claim of the petitioner is based on certain orders passed in FiRs.Appeal No.69/2009 on 13.5.2011, wherein similar relief has been allowed.

If that be so, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.and the learned Court is directed to reconsider the application and decide it again in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

Certified Copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd