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

2023 Supreme(MP) 210

DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Betu Lal Lodhi – Appellant
Versus
Maharaniya Lodhi – Respondent


Advocates:
Vinod Kumar Dubey for petitioner; A.K. Pandey for respondents No. 1 to 4; Vijay Pandey, Penal Lawyer, for respondent No. 7/State.

ORDER

1. This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner/ defendant 2 challenging the order dated 20.8.2018 (Annexure P/3), passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Nagod, District Satna in civil appeal No.23-A/2008, whereby learned first appellate Court has, before deciding the plaintiffs’ regular civil appeal on merits, decided and allowed the application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant 2 by placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another (2012) 8 SCC 148 = 2012(III) MPJR (SC) 258 and of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sampurna Singh v. Harisingh 1997(II) MPWN 147, submits that learned first appellate Court has committed illegality in deciding the application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC before hearing and deciding the appeal on merits and prays for setting aside the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1-4/plaintiffs supports the impugned order and submits that no jurisdictional error has been committed by learned first appellate Court in deciding and allowing the application prior to

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