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

2023 Supreme(MP) 728

ANAND PATHAK
Geeta Paliwal – Appellant
Versus
Sitaram – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate, Anil Sharma, Advocate, Siraj Qureshi, Advocate

JUDGMENT

1. With consent, heard finally. The present petition is preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent no.12.

(ii) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash order Annexure P-2 passed by respondent no.11.

(iii) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash order Annexure P-3 passed by respondent no. 10.

(iv) An appropriate writ or order may kindly be issued dismissing the application filed by respondent no.1 to 9 for mutation (Annexure P-4) since the same is without jurisdiction.

(v) An appropriate writ or order may kindly be issued condoning the delay in filing of the appeal filed by petitioners before respondent no.ll by allowing the application for condonation of delay (Annexure P-10).

(vi) Cost of this petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.

(vii) Any other relief which this Honble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent no.1 submitted an application for mutation in respect of the properti

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