SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Akhtar Khan – Appellant
Versus
Distt. Judge, Pratapgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC-II, Pratapgarh in Original Suit No.01 of 2016 titled Akhtar Khan versus Satya Prakash, rejecting the application (Paper No.95 Ga 2) filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 12/14 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’). The petitioner has also challenged validity of a judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.117 of 2024 titled Akhtar Khan versus (1) Poornawati Sharma and (2) Mamta Sharma, whereby the Revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 03.05.2024 has been dismissed at the admission stage.
3. The petitioner has impleaded the District Judge, Pratapgarh and the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC-II, Pratapgarh a
Jagmail Singh versus Karamjit Singh: (2020) 5 SCC 178
Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat: (2015) 9 SCC 1
Kamalia Brothers and Co. v. State of Gujarat: AIR 1992 Guj 138 = 1991 SCC OnLine Guj 79
Kamalia Brothers and Co. versus State of Gujarat: AIR 1992 Guj 138 = 1991 SCC OnLine Guj 79
Rajkishore Prasad versus State of Orissa: AIR 1979 Ori 96 = 1979 SCC OnLine Ori 35
Savitri Devi vs. District Judge
State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements: (2005) 1 SCC 368
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue: AIR 1963 SC 786
Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. versus Union of India
Judicial officers should not be impleaded in writ petitions, and applications under Order XI must be timely and relevant to the case.
Belated production of original document central to dispute allowed post-evidence if relevant to real controversy, to serve justice in family Will dispute, subject to costs and limited proof opportuni....
Point of Law : Procedural and technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice.
Order VII Rule 14 CPC and Evidence Act Sections 65(a), 45 cannot be used belatedly to fill evidentiary lacunae; requires due diligence, notice, authentication; no supervisory interference absent perv....
Documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be introduced later without court permission, emphasizing the necessity of timely submission under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.