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

2017 Supreme(MP) 761

VIVEK AGARWAL
Shyamlal Vyas – Appellant
Versus
Inderchand – Respondent


Advocates:
B.B. Shukla for applicant; Sanjeev Jain for respondents.

ORDER

1. This civil revision has been filed under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short referred to as “Act”) read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against order dated 23.6.2010, 21.5.2013, 7.6.2013 and 19.6.2013 passed by the learned Rent Control Authority, Gwalior in Case No.24/95-96×90-7. Vide order dated 23.6.2010, the case was fixed for evidence of the applicant. Vide order dated 21.5.2013, the application under section 151, CPC filed on 8.7.2010 to the effect that direction of the Rent Control Authority to the lead evidence is defective and it is submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in section 23-D (3) of the Act, the direction to lead evidence is faulty needs to be recalled, has been rejected.

2. As far as section 115 of CPC is concerned, an order in revision can be challenged within the limitation of 90 days from the date of decree or order sought to be revised. This is in terms of Article 131 of the Limitation Act.

3. In the present case, the applicant has challenged order dated 23.6.2010, but no reason has been assigned as to why this order dated 23.6.2010 was not challenged earlier. It is only m









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