Madhya Pradesh Court April 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Manoramabai Vs. Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)MPHT383
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby making a prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that delay has been caused when the petitioner was pursuing a remedy to redress his grievance by filing a writ petition. Shri Bagdia pointed out the judgment and order in W.P, No. 600/99 and submitted that the writ Court has implicitly condoned the delay by making necessary observation. He submitted that in view of all these things, delay needs to be condoned by taking into consideration bona fide mistake of approaching a wrong forum.2. Shri Vivek Dalai contended that the stand of bona fide mistake is totally incorrect, and does not wash out the delay. He submitted that before filing the writ petition, there has been already delay of 65 days. In addition to that, he submitted that the petitioner was assisted by a lawyer and, therefore, he should have filed a second appeal when the first appeal was decided against him in the district Court. It is his submission that for the purpose of ...
Sukhmani and ors. Vs. Jagarnath
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MPHT462
S.C. Pandey, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the defendants against the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Jashpurnagar in Civil Appeal No. 9- A/94, dated 25-7-95 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25-1-94 passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Jashpurnagar in C.S. No. 169-A/92.2. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 169-A/92 against the appellants claiming that he was entitled to succeed to entire 24.15 acres of land situate in village Dandpani, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Raigarh. The suit property is detailed in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. The respondent stated in his plaint that he was son of Jatu from the second wife Sonamati. The appellants are daughters of Jatu from the first wife. Both the wives of Jatu were no more at the time of filing of the suit. Jatu died in the year 1978 and, therefore, it was claimed by the respondent that according to the custom among Gond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›