Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The judgment emphasizes the importance of signature verification and the legal principle that denial alone does not invalidate a document if signatures are established ["Shivnarain VS Thakura - Madhya Pradesh"].
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["Shivnarain VS Thakura - Madhya Pradesh"]
In the realm of civil litigation, particularly property disputes involving boundaries and demarcations, the role of appellate courts is crucial. A common query from legal practitioners and litigants alike is: provide the judgment of 2014 (1) MPWN 184. This Madhya Pradesh High Court decision provides vital guidance on when appellate courts should exercise their powers directly rather than remanding cases back to trial courts. Delivered in a context of land disputes, it emphasizes efficiency and justice by discouraging routine remands for simple procedural steps like local inspections. This blog post breaks down the judgment's core findings, key principles, and practical implications, drawing from the ruling and related precedents. Union Of India: Prithipal Singh: Ram Mehar Raj Kumar: Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Private LTD. VS Raghubir Singh: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 336
The judgment in 2014 (1) MPWN 184 addresses the exercise of powers by courts in appeals and remand procedures under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It holds that appellate courts should not remand entire cases solely for demarcation or inspection when these tasks can be handled within the appellate process itself. Instead, appellate courts possess inherent authority to issue commissions for local investigations, making remands for such purposes unsustainable. Union Of India: Prithipal Singh: Ram Mehar Raj Kumar: Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Private LTD. VS Raghubir Singh: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 336
This ruling promotes judicial economy, ensuring disputes—especially those over boundaries, survey numbers, and land locations—are resolved expeditiously without unnecessary back-and-forth between courts.
The decision outlines several pivotal points:
These principles align with broader CPC objectives of speedy justice, particularly in property matters where delays from remands can exacerbate conflicts.
The court clarified that issuing a commission differs from witness examination or document production. Issue of a commission is something which is quite different from production of a document or examination of a witness. Provisions regarding issue of a commission are to be found in Order 26 of the Code. Rule 9 of Order 26 provides that in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court. Union Of India: Prithipal Singh: Ram Mehar Raj Kumar: Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Private LTD. VS Raghubir Singh: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 336
This empowers appellate courts to prevent injustice without full remands, streamlining proceedings.
In land demarcation cases, trial court findings often necessitate verification. However, the judgment stresses appellate courts' capability to handle this: demarcations need not trigger full remands. This is especially relevant in Madhya Pradesh, where property disputes frequently hinge on survey records. Union Of India: Prithipal Singh: Ram Mehar Raj Kumar: Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Private LTD. VS Raghubir Singh: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 336
While empowering appellate courts, the ruling sets boundaries:- Commissions are essential for precise boundary disputes but must stay within the court's authority.- Powers should not delay proceedings or serve as procedural loopholes. Union Of India: Prithipal Singh: Ram Mehar Raj Kumar: Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Private LTD. VS Raghubir Singh: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 336
This judgment resonates with Madhya Pradesh High Court trends emphasizing procedural efficiency. For instance, in cases involving court fees for declarations and injunctions related to property, courts have similarly scrutinized relief scopes to avoid undue delays, as seen in discussions under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. Omprakash Sahu VS Dilip Kumar Sahu - 2021 Supreme(MP) 270 In Lakshmikant Dube Vs. Smt. Piyaria, 2002 (II) MPWN 184, reliefs were held not to qualify as 'consequential,' mandating ad valorem fees—highlighting procedural rigor akin to remand scrutiny. Omprakash Sahu VS Dilip Kumar Sahu - 2021 Supreme(MP) 270
Similarly, in criminal contexts under CrPC Section 133, private land disputes (not public nuisances) are redirected to civil forums, underscoring appropriate jurisdictional use without procedural overreach. Cases like Sunnoolal v. Smt. Jankibai 1995(1) MPWN 184 reinforce that personal property controversies belong in civil courts. Ritu Singhal VS Mukul Verma - 2018 Supreme(MP) 881Ritu Singhal VS Mukul Verma - 2018 Supreme(MP) 786
These precedents illustrate a consistent judicial push against misuse of procedures, whether in civil remands or fee assessments, promoting resolution on merits.
Litigants in property suits may find relief knowing appellate courts can intervene decisively, potentially shortening litigation timelines.
This analysis, based on 2014 (1) MPWN 184 and cited materials, offers general insights into civil appellate procedures. It is not legal advice; consult a qualified attorney for case-specific guidance, as outcomes may vary by facts and jurisdiction. For full judgment details, refer to official reports. Union Of India: Prithipal Singh: Ram Mehar Raj Kumar: Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Private LTD. VS Raghubir Singh: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 336
Note: This post draws solely from provided sources for accuracy.
#MPHighCourt #CivilProcedure #LegalJudgment
Baba Raghunath Dass) and 1981 (II) MPWN SN 184 (Narendra Nath Thakur v. Mukutram). ... 8. It is argued by Shri Roman that the defendant No. 1 has merely denied the execution of the agreement as well as sale deed. ... Mukutram [1981 (2) MPWN 184]. ... 12. In view of the aforesaid position of law, plaintiff/appellant does not get assistance from the decisions in the case of Samam Singh (supra) and Indira Gangole (supra). ... It is contended by Shri Roman, learned counsel that the signature of the defendan....
In terms of the judgment passed by the Court in the case of Lakshmikant Dube Vs. Smt. Piyaria, 2002 (II) MPWN 184 the relief which has been claimed does not fall under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. ... He has further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Varud Ahmed Vs. Nihal Ahmed, 1996 (1) MPWN 235. In the case of Ashok Kumar Gehani and another Vs. ... He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case....
Pramilabai and others), 1996 (1) MPWN 235 (Varud Ahmed v. Nihal Amhed), 1993 (I) VIBHA 259 (Om Prakash and others v. Suratram and others) and 2002 (I) MPWN 184=2002 (2) MPLJ 44 (Laxmikant Dube v. Smt. ... We may successfully refer on this point other decision of this Court reported in 2005 (2) MPWN 43 (Kamalkishore v. Jagannath Prasad). ... 12. Reliance by Shri D.D. Bansal on 1999 (II) MPWN 136 (Bhikam Chandra v. ... Short facts involved herein are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.....
Vishnu Das 1976 MPWN 69 and Sunnoolal v. Smt. Jankibai 1995(1) MPWN 184 to submit that when the place in question is not a public place, therefore, cognizance was wrongly taken by S.D.M. ... 6. ... ORDER ... 1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under section 482 of the CrPC against the orders dated 9.10.2018 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in Cr. ... The S.D.M passed an order on 1.8.2018 whereby, cognizance has been taken in this regard. A revision was prefer....
Vishnu Das 1976 MPWN 69 and Sunnoolal v. Smt. Jankibai 1995(1) MPWN 184 to submit that when the place in question is not a public place, therefore, cognizance was wrongly taken by S.D.M. ... 6. ... Resultantly, the revisional order dated 9.10.2018 and the order of cognizance dated 1.8.2018 passed by S.D.M Gwalior are hereby set-aside. The petition stands allowed and disposed of. ... ORDER ... 1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under section 482 of the CrPC against the or....
He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the cases of Gurucharan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 992, Anand Tiwari Vs. State of M.P., MP Weekly Notes 2016 (II) MPWN 135, M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 SC 1238, Waseem Vs. ... State of M.P., MP weekly Notes 2010 (I) MPWN 101, Nirmal Jain and Ors Vs. State of M.P., MP Weekly Notes 2008 (II) MPWN 66, Meena Devi and Anr Vs. State of M.P., MP weekly Notes 2015 (II) MPWN3, Hukum Singh Yadav and Anr. Vs. State of M.....
Simon C Abraham, 2014 (I) MPWN = (2014) 2 SCC 236 has held that 'in order to draw the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant is required to discharge his initial burden. ... Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Bharadwaj Vs. Anand Vijan reported in 2004 (II) MPWN 131. ... For this purpose, he also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of K. Su....
... Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on 1984-MPWN-Note 463 (Durgawati v. Bajranglal) where this Court transferred a case to the place where wife's case was pending. T)le other case relied upon is 1989 (I) MPWN-Note 68 (Munnibai v. Lokprasad Tiwan). ... JUDGMENT ... This is an application u/s 24 of the I.P.C. for transfer of Case No. 33N93 C.O. (Nathoo Ram Sharma v. Rajni) pending in the Court of Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhind to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior. ... The non-app....
Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submissions placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Gorelal and others vs. Rahul Punjabi, 2010 (1) MPWN 62 has submitted that necessary correction can be permitted where the mistake is bonafide. ... In the judgment of the case of Lekhraj Singh Kushwah vs. Brahmanand Tiwari, 2013(5) MPHT 184, this court after considering the earlier view has held that amendment in the complaint, notice as well as in the affidavit filed by the respondent cannot be ....
He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar v. Punjab National Bank, 2013 (III) MPWN 38. 4. ... Case in hand is in respect of a loan given by the respondent to the petitioner on 12.5.2005 and for settlement of the same petitioner has given the cheque in 2014 (dated 28.1.2014) therefore, petitioner has acknowledged the debt as per section 18 of the Limitation Act. ... Petitioner/accused filed a complaint under sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that tr....
From the aforesaid exposition of law it is clear as noonday that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. 21 of the judgment reported in (2014) 1 SCC 161 herein-below:- Even by way of repetition, it would be apt to reproduce paragraph no.
(iv) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the credit of C.C.No. If the petitioner absconds in the meantime, the amount will be forfeited to the State and separate surety action can be taken to recover Rs. 50,000/- (v) the petitioner shall be present for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the date of judgment. 184 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, which will be returned only after the judgment in C.C.No.184 of 2014 is pronounced.
(ii) Tarun Malkapurkar v. Jitendra Agrawal and others,[2016(2) MPRD 449 : 2017 (2) MPLJ 600]. (iii) Ambika Prasad and others v. Shri Ram Shiromani @ Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi and another, [2011(II) MPWN 118=2011(3) MPLJ 184]. (iv) Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others (Civil Appeals No.2811-2813 of 2010 decided on 29.3.2010)
The Appellate Court (XVIII Additional Sessions Judge) vide judgment dated 18.04.2015 confirmed the judgment dated 01.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C. No.285 of 2002. Aggrieved over the said judgment, Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2014 was filed. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai further held that the sentence imposed on A4 company will be on A3 and the period of sentence imposed shall run concurrently.
It is lastly submitted that as both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the property in dispute was ancestral property and the learned lower appellate Court held that no partition had taken place, without there being any cross objection by the defendants in the instant appeal, it has attained finality that the plaintiffs had interest in the joint family property and it being ancestral property, have all the locus to challenge the sale deed executed by Ramashankar as it directly affects their rights and interest in the property in dispute. Reliance has b....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
