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

1999 Supreme(MP) 217

FAKHRUDDIN
Balmukund Singhal – Appellant
Versus
Biharilal – Respondent


ORDER

Fakhruddin, J.

Petitioner in person.

Shri P.D. Bidua, Counsel who is present is given notice.

1. Heard.

Record perused.

The order passed by the District Judge, Gwalior dated 10-12-1998 is also perused.

2. Petitioner contended that the court-below is proceeding in the matter hurriedly and the application filed by him has been rejected. His contention is that he would not get fair trial, as according to him, most of the applications filed by him have been rejected without any reason.

3. This contention has no force. The applicant had filed an application for amendment on 1-2-1999, which was allowed by the court-below and the non-applicant against that preferred a revision, which has been dealt with separately. It is therefore not correct that all the applications have been rejected.

4. A perusal of the record further shows that the matter is pending since quite a long. The orders passed by the court-below against which revisions were preferred before this Court are detailed orders and the High Court while dealing with the matter directed for expeditious disposal of the matter vide order dated 20-8-1996, passed in Civil Revision No. 179 of 1996. Civil Revision No. 609/98 preferred by the




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