Dismissed

Dabnic Nag v. State of M.P. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Dec 2012WP/5407/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Dabnic Nag. for lack of impleading the necessary party representing the deceased person, holding the impugned order passed by the lower court must stand. The petition was rejected for want of proper party representation without any substantive discussion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for want of impleading the necessary party; lower court order upheld.

Dabnic Nag Vs State of M.P. and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

iii

¶3

A
i
F
EEE
r
awwoncnnccwomwmwn
mu
OJ
mrmwnr C
>
Hz
m m3 HIGH COURT, OF JUDICATURE,, __ H AT__ ,.J$ALPUR¢,..J$ALPUR¢,.._,.. ~
warr PETITION NO$LIU7 or 2000.

¶4

‘
l‘
JUDICATURE,, __ H AT__ ,.J$ALPUR¢,..J$ALPUR¢,.._,.. ~ :
W
K?
NO$LIU7 or 2000.
<br>Dabnic Nag. Aged about 48 yrs.
3/0. Late Shri c.s. Nag)
R/0.B-6. T.T.T.I. Shggnla H1115.
Bhopal (it?) , W

¶5

$tate of Madhya Pradesh. Through the Collector. Distt. Mahasamund (M,P.)

¶6

£ Previously Tah. Mahasamund’
Distt. Raipur) .

¶7

kaditional Collector. Distt. Mahasamund.(MP)

¶8

Sub - Divisional O££i¢en Saraipalli. Distt. Mahasamund;

¶9

1. Gajadhar Nag, Aged about 60 yrs. s/o.Late shri C.S.Nago R/OJIillage - Kgdupali: Post - Mal‘aaagmalo Via Paikin: ?.s. Saraipali. Distt. Mahasamund (ME)

¶10

WIT^PETITION UNDm ARTICLE 226_/227 OF CWSTITUTIW OF INDIA. >3 PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONEI : As stated in the Cause Title above. P£REIWS OF THE RESPONDWTS : As stated in the Cause Title above. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDm AGAINST WICH 'IHE \ PETITION IS MADE : ' (i) order passed in Case Na.Rev.Ca'se Na.376-A-23 Year 1987~88¢ Contd. . .2/-

¶11

PETITION IS MADE :

¶12

' (i) order passed in Case Na.Rev.Ca'se Na.376-A-23

¶13

g amw EHQI OOCWH Om‘.HGUHOwHdwmwa.Q§m2uwcw.
zwHawwaHeHozzohNEJow mooo.

¶14

¶15

umeHaHozmlm. .

¶16

u wSwUBFD‘zmD. ‘ yawg mvorE am “Rm;
m3?g %¢&M
w

¶17

Maw. wju mw6w§w§mwawmwgwwwwwmu w$w§&&§§.a %&@

¶18

w? gmwww %m@“ w@@&M3 ¢w$www m§w wag? age my &%a§%§@ a mgmw“w; mwmwmwé mxwa @mwmnwe Emw

¶19

@a mgww‘ W Mmwmwe mgammwwm wéwww $@@§m a ta:@mwmmwwmd anmEHQ mmmew@£@m,w.§@m g mww,$§0mwkw§v§awg Q§Www g owa w

WW,W,W

W“

W WMS’W 20

W W (W)

	mmm	Wmmfggm
V\‘	PS.B. Hon’ble ShriJustice ^{N.K. Ag} 13.12.2012 S'hri HS Patel with 'Shri A .pbtitioners. 'Sh’ri GD Waswani, Govt. A(i V 1 to 3. ' ‘ Shn Patel, ^{learned counsel a} that ‘peies’on in whose ^{favour the or} without surviving by 1 diedi any a’ppoihtment ^{of Administrator-Gen} Grder ^{22 Rule 4(A) of CPC.} ofrecord wo A bare perusal favour ^{the order has been}passed, application ^{filed by} and therefore, is rejected. instant petition ^{has been} in whose fa party ^{i.e. the person} passed ^{by the court below, therefo} hereby dismissed ^{for want of impl} tocosts. i	^rwak nand Gupta, Advocates for the ‘vocate for the State/respondentNo. ’ ,, ~ pearing ^{for the-petitiogers submits} ^{er impugned has been passed, has} gal representative, ^andprays for ^{ral or Officer of the Court under} ^{11d reveal, above}person, ^{in whose} he petitioners ^{is misconceived and} K led without ^{impleading necessary} the order ^{impugned has been} our ^{e, the petition is liable to be and is} No‘order as ^{ading necessary party.} i

Dabnic Nag v. State of M.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dabnic Nag v. State of M.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.B.I. Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Neelam Devi and Ors.

Lal Bahadur @ Dr.Lal Bahadur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Manohar Reddy

Shyamlal Dixena Vs Jhaduram Dixena and Ors.

Roop Singh Chouhan and Others Vs Smt.Gauri Bai and Others

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Deva and Others