SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Pat) 162

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Uma Kant Jha – Appellant
Versus
Shital Thakur – Respondent


Judgment

S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The petitioners are Defendant Nos. 17 and 18 in the court below. They have challenged the impugned order dated 25th August, 1994 passed in Partition Suit No. 111/71 by the learned Munsif, I. Madhubani.

2. After the preliminary decree made in the partition suit, the survey knowing Pleader Commissioner was appointed. He submitted report. After hearing the objection of all die parties, by the impugned order dated 25th August 1994, the learned Munsif, I, Madhubani has accepted the report of the Pleader Commissioner, namely, Shri Madan Mohan Mishra and confirmed the same.

3. The defendants petitioners have challenged the aforesaid impugned order dated 25th August 1994, by which court below accepted and confirmed the report of the pleader Commissioner, Shri Madan Mohan Mishra; by filing the present Civil revision application.

4. The office of this Court by its stamp report has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present civil revision application against such order. Counsels on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have also raised the question of maintainability of the present civil revision application-. According to the counsel fo






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top