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

1968 Supreme(MP) 175

P.V.DIXIT
KHEMCHAND MULCHAND – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.PANDEY, L.S.BAGHEL,

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THE circumstances in which this revision petition has been filed are that the applicant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, chhindwara, challenging the validity of land acquisition proceedings of certain lands and claiming a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings were illegal and void. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Thereupon the non-applicants Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional district Judge, Chhindwara, against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, class II.

( 2. ) WHILE the appeal was pending for hearing, the aforesaid non-applicants presented an application under Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil procedure for being allowed to tender in evidence a document. They also made an application for amendment of their written statement. Both these applications were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on the condition of payment of costs to the petitioner. The plaintiff applicant has now come up in revision against the order of the Additional District Judge permitting the non-applicants Nos. 4 and 5 to tender additional evidence and to amend their written statement.

( 3. ) IN my judg






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