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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 918

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
Umesh Sharma – Respondent


Advocates:
Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria,Advocate General

Table of Content
1. arguments for proper valuation (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. court's analysis of reliefs (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. requirement to set aside decree (Para 17)
4. order set aside and directions given (Para 18 , 19)

ORDER

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Case No.37 of 2021 (RCSA) whereby an application preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was preferred seeking a prayer for directing the plaintiff to value the suit properly and pay the ad-valorem Court-fees thereupon was rejected.

3. Learned Trial Court after hearing the matter had dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order had totally skipped from considering that no relief of injunction or recovery of possession could have been granted without setting aside the decree,

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