Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt.Rajni Jain vs Ramsharan Bajaj on 10 July, 2014

                                           1                     WP No.8577/2013


                  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                         BENCH AT GWALIOR

                              SB: Justice Sujoy Paul

                                 WP No. 8577/2013

                                    Smt. Rajni Jain
                                         VS.
                                   Ramsharan Bajaj

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri T.C. Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri C.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      ORDER

( 10 / 07 / 2014) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 18.11.2013 whereby petitioner's application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. is rejected by the Court below.

2. Shri T.C. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that pleadings of petitioner in para 1 of the plaint is ignored by the Court below while framing issue No.1 ( Annexure P.4). It is submitted that issue proposed by the petitioner is " D;k izfroknh oknxzLr nqdku esa iwoZ HkwLokeh dh vksj ls 1200@& :i;s ekgokj ij HkkM+s ls vkckn gS\" and this should have been allowed. He fairly submits that he is not pressing on any other point and issue.

3 Prayer is opposed by Shri C.P.Singh, learned counsel for the other side. He submits that the order of Court below is in accordance with law.

4. In the opinion of this Court, issues are required to be framed carefully on the basis of pleadings. In view of pleadings of para 1 of the plaint, the petitioner is justified in asking modification of issue No.1. The Court below opined that issue No.1, which is already framed, covers the issue sought to be reframed. I am unable to accept the same as the issue No.1 cannot completely cover the proposed reframed issue suggested by the petitioner. The petitioner's prayer is based on pleadings. The finding of the Court below is clearly erroneous.

5. Resultantly, the order dated 18.11.2013 to the extent Issue No.2 is 2 WP No.8577/2013 not reframed, is set aside. The Court below is directed to treat the following issue as issue No.2 :-

D;k izfroknh oknxzLr nqdku esa iwoZ HkwLokeh dh vksj ls 1200@& :i;s ekgokj ij HkkM+s ls vkckn gS\

6. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No Costs.

(Sujoy Paul) Judge sarathe