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

1997 Supreme(MP) 206

S.S.JHA
Aslam Beg Mirdha – Appellant
Versus
Babulal – Respondent


Advocates:
K.K. Lahoti forpetitioner; Sameer Kumar Jain for respondents.

ORDER

1. The order of this revision shall govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 1029 of 1996 between Farukh and Ramesh Singh & others.

2. This revision is filed under section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Both these revision petitions arise out of the order passed in Election Petition under the Act before the District Judge, Guna, .

3. For filing an election petition rules have been framed, which are known as Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Rule 19 of the Rules provides for revision. Rule 19 is reproduced below :-

" 19. Revision.-- (1) No petition by way of revision shall lie against any interlocutory order passed by the Judge.

(2) At the time of presentation of the petition for revision under subsection (2) of section 26 against the decision of the Judge, the petitioner shall deposit with the High Court a sum of Rs. 250 as security for the costs of the revision. If the provisions of this rules are not complied with the High Court shall dismiss the petition."

4. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 provides that at the time of presentation of the petition for revis





























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