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 0, Cited by 5]

Patna High Court - Orders

Yogesh Chaturvedi vs Mahabir Yadav & Ors on 14 December, 2012

Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi

Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5064 of 2011
                  ====================================================
                  Yogesh Chaturvedi Son of Late Kishore Chaturvedi, Resident of Village-
                  Malaypur, Police Station- Barhat, District Jamui
                                                               .... Defendant/ Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                  1. Mahabir Yadav, Son of Late Darshan Yadav
                  2. Smt. Fulia Devi, Wife of Sri Mahabir Yadav
                     Both residents of village- Teliya Dih, Police Station- Jhajha, District
                     Jamui
                  3. Ramesh Cchaturvedi
                  4. Shailesh Chaturvedi
                     Both sons of Late Kishore Chaturvedi, residnts of village- Malaypur,
                     Police Station- Barhat, District Jamui
                                                                       .... .... Respondent/s

                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
                                                   Mr Satya Prakash, Advocate
                  For the Respondent/s         :   None.

                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
                  ORAL ORDER


6   14-12-2012

Counsel for the petitioner has no information with regard to the status of the suit. The reason why the Court wanted to have the input was to find out as to the status where the suit had reached as such.

The Court has gone through the impugned order, considered the same and has found that the reasoning given by the trial court for rejecting the amendment petition are cogent and valid reasons.

In view of the same, the writ application has no meaning. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk