During the hearing of Civil Revision under Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioner sought to withdraw the revision application. The court passed no order as to costs and subsequently dismissed the revision as withdrawn.
Revision dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs.
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.
'i‘HE 1N CUUI‘i’f 'vF J'U‘lJvICrLxTUHE AT )wé‘4534‘3’sLFHR, “3.13. C.R.Nu. 1 HQ /98 \
\
Agk‘il igant igant
Agk‘il igant igant $53101: Aagaxwal $On of iihri Met” endant no .5 . E-iandki sho re Aga mal aged aged about 55 years, Re5ident of Krishna Rice Mill, iv‘xugali i‘ioad, ¥§ Bilaspur, M.P. ”Versusii‘oggpgiwnt WUDr. Rumi Bend aged about gb)Xavwv P laint iffv 32 yea15,¥lrinc_ipalPggxpaz‘ Vg Higher decondary Sghoél. 1 Bilaspur, i‘a‘a.P._ ‘ \ EiEEfendatut n0. l. y 2. Murlidhar :3harma 3cm 9f Sf‘rri iiukhsampa tdhar aged ’ aged about 54 years, Presid‘ent, Pusnparaj Svikshan E‘ami‘ti, Bilaspu: ‘ :- i 1‘61 .P . Bézfen a nt m .2. i} YOgesh Fratap Singh Son 6f Late 3hri CAB. Singh aged ? w \ about 55 ye&rs,Koshadhyaka ié1 PUsv'kpraj ’Sikshan ¢amltlfwxi ;g Bilaspur, Resident pf 'i i Idhgah Chowk , b‘ila spun k ti ILiEefendant n0.3. 5' 4. g mK. Mehta Son of Lat e f 3hriM Mehta aged
n u
'13. Defendant nu.§. s"
Pushpara j 3ikshan 5amiti Eilaspur, Resident of Near Iwt&swmw,BH&qwLM£. Smt. H.K. Shanda wife‘of Late Shri $harnagath $ingh Sande, aged about 35 ye&rs, Resident of Shando'lce Factory, &ayalbandh, Biiaspur, M.Pa
Defen§ant no.6
Hanuman Pra sad Shukla , aged about 68 years, Retired Clerk, $ale$ $epartment, Resident of. Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, m.F .l
CIVIL HEVIL‘SIbN PETITION‘JUNDERSECTION ll5 \ 1 OF ENE. CMQE Ci: Cl‘v’lL Pk k. *UHE AGAINS T AN r umk‘iR'EMEB 20/3/1998 ii-A Jul: BY Evi‘ifi‘l 1'.C. YEUU, 3EV£N1H ADiJJKITImAL: J UU ..i E TC R113. cuuilaT OF D131’RUUT J‘Ui’jIgEEz, BILA 3P UR, IN mISC. £IV1L mHLAL NW 13/@&”‘A.Qg w ilixh ‘l.u Nd THE UFi‘JiiiR UT. 20/3/98 Fla,gw; 32' THE Tm: NJ iJIViL M'vuQ, GLiimSii II, Bjégai£luxa m cry/1% ad? 1 m. 387M l997. \
@
H’IQ‘H §OUBT QFCHHAI liéégkti QILASPUK ’ée’nch: Hon’bie i‘v‘w. T.F. $i’tarma. 3} (Singie
Civil RevisionNo.74U/19§8 ‘i'he CFC) (§evisionuna'erSeciion11§of
Ashok Agarwal
Agglican'r/
§efenciani No5
‘
Dr. kumi 60nd mm“ . Piaini’i‘ff we Muriidhar Shar'umm Defendan‘rNo.1 VogesinPromo befendan‘iNo.2 Defendan‘rNo.3 PS”Q‘O‘. Rik. Meh-m ‘De‘fendcmi No.4 Smi. ELK.Si’ia‘r‘ido Defendam NGE DefendantNo.6 Hanurnan Prasad
Dr. kumi 60nd we Muriidhar Shar'umm
VogesinPromoSing'h
PKE§§aii
Mia ScarabhSharma,Advocm‘efor‘iheappiiccm‘i. Mr. S. Verma,Adv.forTherespondentsNo.3&4. ‘ None foriheoi'herrespandenfs.
QroiOrdeg (11.9.2012)
No orderasi0cosis. 2. Accordingly,.Therevisionisdismissedaswi‘ri’idmwn.
/<br>‘/; \ Sd/-
T.P. Sharma
Judge
Ashok Agarwal
Dr. Rumi Bend
Murlidhar Sharma
Voges Pratap Singh
Smt. H.K. Sharda
Hanuman Prasad Shukla
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
