Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.10189 of 2012 Shanti Bai and others Vs. Sushila Bai and others Shri S.B. Shrivastava :- Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ashok Tiwari :- Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Shri Shyam Yadav, :- Counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5. None :- for respondent nos. 6 and 7. Shri Amit Sharma :- PL for respondent no.8. ORDER1110/2013 U.C. MAHESHWARI, J.1. The petitioners- applicants have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2012, (Ann. P-1), passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Gadarwara in COS No.19-A/2011 whereby their application, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC (Ann. P-4) to implead them as a party in a suit filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 against respondent nos. 3 to 7 with impleading the respondent no.8 - State of M.P. as formal party for declaration, perpetual injunction and partition with some other reliefs, has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Civil Revision No.176 of 2013 Gorelal Lodhi and others Vs. Ratan Lal Lodhi and others. Shri Mukhtar Ahmad :- Counsel for the applicants. ORDER1110/2013 U.C. MAHESHWARI, J.1. The applicants - defendants nos. 1, 3 (a), 3 (b), 5 (3) and 5 (b) have filed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 11.1.2013, passed by the Xth Civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.122-A/2005, whereby their application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, for dismissal of the suit for want of proper valuation and the court fee accordingly, has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent No.1 herein has filed the aforesaid suit against the applicants as well as against remaining respondents as stated in the cause title of the plaint, (Ann. P-1) for partition and some other reliefs with respect of the land described in plaint. Besides the cause title on perusing the pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P. No.13693 of 2013 11.10.2013 Shri A.K.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.13 (Annex.P/1) passed by II Civil Judge-II, Jabalpur in COS No.77-A/10 whereby dismissing her application filed on the same day under order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint, her right to cross-examine the defendant's witness has been closed and the case has been fixed for final arguments on 7.8.13.2. Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the impugned amendment application Anenx.P/5 and the copy of the plaint argued that such proposed amendment is necessary in the matter because in the lack of such proposed description in the pleadings of the plaint the matter could not be adjudicated effectively by the court between the parties but the trial court has dismissed the same under wrong premises and, in such prem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 Cr.R. No.1297/1999 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1297/1999 APPLICANT : Ramesih Kumar, S/o. Chanulal, R/o. Obedullaganj, District Raisen (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of M.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate for applicant. Respondent/State by Shri R.S. Shukla, Public Prosecutor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (10.10.2013) This revision application under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed by the applicant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.1999 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen dismissing the criminal appeal No.6/1999 and thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen in Criminal Case No.461/1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P. No.5319 of 2012 10.10.2013 Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, GA for the respondents No.1 to 4. Heard on IA No.14230/13. This is additional rejoinder in response of the additional return of the respondent/ state authorities filed in the shape of the application. The same is taken on record.2. Heard on the question of admission as well as for final disposal.3. The petitioner, an agriculturist of village Panwar Chouhanan Tola, District Sidhi has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ for the following relief :- (a) To direct the respondents to carry out the construction of canal of Gulab Sagar Canal as per the revised map and the land which has been sought to be acquired by notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (b) To direct the respondents not to make any construction before considering the objections of the petitioner in respect of survey of land. (c ) To direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.R.No.1744/2013 10.10.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. With consent, the matter is finally heard. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.8.2013 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T.No.131/13 whereby the objection raised by the petitioner in regard to framing of charge under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act (for short the Act) has been overruled. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, impugned order was perused. It is an admitted fact that in Crime No.45/13 registered at Police Station Betul Bazar, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 25/27 of the Act. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, it is also clear that mandatory provision of Section 39 of the Act has not been complied with by the prosecution and without obtaining any sanction from the District Magistrate, charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.R.No.1869/2013 10.10.2013 Smt. Indu Pandey, learned counsel fosr petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. With consent, the matter is heard finally. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.8.2013 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Cr.A.No.143/2012 whereby the judgment passed by the trial court convicting the petitioner under Sections 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo, R.I.for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and R.I.for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, was modified. Accordingly, the petitioner is now required to undergo R.I.for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C.and further to undergo R.I.for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 451 of the I.P.C At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.R.No.1849/2013 10.10.2013 Shri B.K.Bais, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Heard on admission. This revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the Act).challenging the order dated 4/9/13 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Singrouli, in Cr.A.No.155/2013 whereby the order of the trial Court rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, was affirmed. Crime No.778/13 was registered at Police Station Waidhan against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 457, 376, 342 read with 34 and 450 of the IPC and Section 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the Courts below mainly on the ground that possibility of his again joining the company of miscreants could not be ruled out. Provision for bail of the Juvenile is given under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.R.No.2096/2013 10.10.2013 Shri A.K.Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent/State. With consent, the matter is finally heard. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 3.10.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna, in Cr.A.No.142/13 whereby the judgment passed by the trial court convicting the petitioner under Sections 341 and 354 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo S.I.for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo R.I.for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- respectively, was modified to the extent that custodial sentence under Section 354 of the IPC was reduced to six months R.I.while the corresponding fine amount was enhanced to Rs.3000/-. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the convictions awarded to the petitioner. However, he prayed that the custodial sentences passed against the petitioner may be red...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Cr.R.No.1827/2013 10.10.2013 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Sameer Chile, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. With consent, the matter is finally heard. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.8.2013 passed by I Additional Judge to the court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Cr.A.No.163/13 whereby the judgment of the trial Court convicting the petitioner under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I.for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I.for three months (two counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ (two counts).respectively, was affirmed. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the petitioner. However, he prayed that the custodial sentence passed against the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. According to him, the petitioner is in jail since 30.8.2013....
Tag this Judgment!