A revision directed against an order dated 15.4.2000 order where the learned Civil Judge directed the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty over an impounded document. Revision rejected as not maintainable under proviso to Section 115 of CPC.
Certified copy of impugned order to be returned on applicant furnishing authenticated true copy of the same.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
XI-HC-78
3^ "^I^K'I^, »Tfl<d'IC, fs|ftiyy<
*11H('TTsh^|cb
Wf 200
3ii^i qach ('^tg^i)')
|3:ii^r«fir)^TR;
tW3IT^Tsht||eb|g^crrwgl^crsn^r
<*>I0^41^ KIKdTfffe><rl <Rlk;K
^srf^trsn^T|
|---|---|
||CIVIL REVISIO U N0.1558 OF 2000|
||Dfd. No.l
Si|iresh Sin9h, son of Chitrsbhan Singh,
|ed
about
D|jmerapora,
t>
Vs
48
yecrs.
(Shcsneli),
K/o
Tah.
Village-
Shokti,
|stt; Bilaspur M.P.|
||Ramashanker' Sin9h, son of Bhupdev|
||Plaintiff
Defendant No.2
to7
Singh
Occ;
Agr-iculturist,
R/o
Village-
Naya
Baradwor',
Tah.
Shakti, &istt; Bilaspur. M.P.
(Now Distt; Jsnjgir-Chcmpa)
Sumer
Singh
son
of
Chil'rsbhan
Singh, aged about 46 years,
Surya Sen Singh, son of Chitrabhan
Singh, aged about44ye.ws.
Balbhadra Sinqh
@
Balrarn Sinqh,
son ofChitrabhan Singh, aged about
42 years.
Krishna
Kumar
Singh
@
Maidev
Singh,
son of
Chitrabhan
5in9h,
09ed obout 40 years.
Amar
Singh
son
of
Chitrcbhan
Singh, aged about 38 yeors.
Ranjit
Singh
son
of
Chitrabhan
5ingh, aged about 35years.
residents of
villaqe
Dumer'-Para,
(fiheneli) Tah. Shakti, Distt; Bilaspur,
^.P. (Now Distt: Janjgir-Chompa) M.P.|
||Present
:
Shri D.N. Prajapati, A^vocate for the applicant.
Nonefor the respond^nts.|
XI-HC-78
3^•^I'MK'II, ®Tny'ie,fsiiiiyy
^II^MIShtllch 200
3ll3;<'l<4ac») (yit^Gl^ff)
3:n^?Tq!rR-fi'* traT3TWr»)t|l<h ^cffWBfgCTan^r
°hi<ifn41-f iiMi-iT^:fe<^t'<Rl+<iR
^srf^iTSti^r
This revision is dirscted agai |isttheor'derdated15.4.2000 passedby the Civil Judge, Class-I, Shakti, OispTDis|)'r'ict Janjgir-Champo in Civil Suit No.79A/89 whersby the learned Civi! Ju^e whils considering the objection with respect to admissibiiity of impound^d document direeted ths plaintiff to pay' the duty and penalty ove" the said dbcument. Learned counsei for the a ^pj^plicsnt fairiy submits thst the instant revision is not maintainable in view clf the proviso to Section 115 of the Cods of Civil Procedure and judgment o^ the Apex CoLirt in ths matter' of Shw Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Na^pur Vs. Sv.'araj &svelopers ond othe"s reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659. However, he prays for liberty to fi!e appropriate proceedings ayailable yr|der' the !aw. Consider'ing; ths above subm| ission , the revision is dismlssed as not maintainabie with the libepty, as pr4yed for". Learned counsel for the opplliccnt further prays that certified copy of impugned order be raturned. Office is directed to return rhe certified copy ofthe iiTipugned order on applicsnt's furnishing authenticat(sd true copy of the same.
Sd/DHIBENDBAMISHBA
Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision is maintainable against a single order on admissibility of an impounded document directed to pay duty and penalty.
Whether proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars maintenance of the revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Savaraj Developers and othersReferred¶17
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Savaraj Developers and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiresh Singh
Ramashanker Singh
Shri Dharendra Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
