Dismissed

Vijay Rameshwar Singh Maravai v. Ramashankar Pradhan and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2013MA/50/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a memorandum of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC vis-a-vis a temporary injunction application rejected by trial court, appellant sought liberty to file fresh application after withdrawal. Court granted liberty and dismissed appeal as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file fresh application before trial court; appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty.

Vijay Rameshwar Singh Maravai Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

•^-V ^•'.'v-- ^'^ -v.-^''^ ^-v-^^ •^-^-^-^-^-OV-^Y'V^^^'^'v^-^'^

¶2

^^'\yv'^~^-'^vj"^'-;"V\

¶3

¶4

/ c^- ^

¶5

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.6. AT BILASPUR M. A. No. Cf) of 2010

¶6

APPELLANT/ : ^ Vijay Rameshwar Singh Maravi, S/o ^dfntiff {^ Bahadur Singh Maravi, aged ^.^^^rShri ^.^ about 38 years, Occupation-Service, ....^ ...>"(^^^Q R/o Quarter No.-G-17, Nootan Colony, ^ "'^' Bilaspur, Tahsil & District-Bilaspur .^'"^<^^V<5y"' ^ t^ (C.G.) ^••VERSUS RESPONbENTS/ Ramashankar Pradhan, S/o Late ^Defendants /.^ Kunjram Pradhan, aged about 47 years, Occupation-Service, A Dinesh Kumar Pradhan, S/o Late Kunjram Pradhan, aged about 40 years, Occupation-Service. 3^. Ku. Pushpalata Pradhan, D/o Late Kunjram Pradhan, aged about 42 years, AII R/o Muktidham Chowk, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil <& bistrictBilaspur (C.6.)

¶7

4^ State of Chhattisgarh, Throygh the Collector, Bilaspur, District-Bila^pur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CIVIL PROCEbURE CObE 1908

T-

^ft?CI-HC—78

^~£T ^l^l<rf-4, ^ftWTS', [sldl'9^

¶12

'RTqW ^iTrT ^ .N.A.^o....So^io,,""""""""'""""""""""/""""--'^ 200

¶13

^?T •tT5RT (-^33^^)

¶14

^i^T^rf^F "^^T W^T'^TRN?	^^T^^^rf^T 3??^r	^T^Tqt^ •RTq^ff-^fezt T^f??TT '^'erRRW^
	S.B: HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N 02.04.2013:	K. AGARWAL
	Mr. BharatRajput, counsf Mrs. Renu Kochar. couns Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, PLf	el jel ^r forthe appeilant. for respondents No. 1 to 3. t)rtheState/respondentNo. 4.
	w thi Counsel for the appella grant oftemporary injunction that in a suitfiled by proposed Gurudiwan, Shailendra GurudM decree has been passed by Civil Appeal No.03/2009 whe< resfrained from interfering in further submits that the above and appellant has alreadyincoii impleaded proposed responde^	^s e ht sorated ts submits that appellant's application for rejected by the trial Court on the ground jespondents No. 5 to 7 namely Dharmendra jlan & Smt. Shakun Pradhan, a compromise Permanent Lok Adalat, Bilaspur in Misc. }eby respondents No. 1 to 3 have been possession over the suit property. He jcompromise decree was obtained by fraud the above fact in the plaint and also as defendants jn the suit and, therefore,
	in view of subsequent chang^ liberty to file fresh application injunction.	s, \s, he seeks to withdraw this appeal with )efore the trial Court for grant of temporary
	Prayer is notopposed.
	Liberty isgranted aspra^	edfor.
	Accordingly, the misc.	ppeal is dfsmissed as withctrawn with the
D/-	libertyas aforesaid. No ordera^	tocosts, —— Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge

¶15

Vijay Rameshwar Singh Maravai v. Ramashankar Pradhan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Rameshwar Singh Maravai v. Ramashankar Pradhan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Singh Vs Khushiram Prajapati and Ors.

Dev Raj and Ors. Vs Nanki and Ors.

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sarojani and Ors.

Ratu Ram @ Rajkumar Vs Anil Das Panika and Ors.

M/s Mahaveer Construction Company Vs Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Abdul Rafiq Vs Raju Yadav and Others