IN THE HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
REVIEW
PETITION NO. OF 2017.
CAUSE
TITLE
APPLICANT/ : SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT/ : JIYAUDDIN
I
N D E X
|
Sno
|
Description of documents
|
Annexure
|
Pages
|
|
1.
|
Index
|
|
1
|
|
2.
|
Chronology of
events
|
|
2 TO 4
|
|
3.
|
Memo of Review
petition alongwith affidavit
|
|
5 TO 15
|
|
4.
|
List of Documents
|
|
16
|
|
5.
|
Copy of the Memo
of writ petition together with all the Annexures
|
A-1
|
17 TO 56
|
|
6.
|
Certified Copy of
the Order Dated 16.08.2017 Passed By This Hon’ble High Court In The Matter Of
Saiyyad Athar Ali Versus Jiyauddin In
The File Of Writ Petition No. 5470 Of 2017 (I)
|
A-2
|
57 TO 59
|
|
7.
|
Copy of the Order
dated 05.01.2015 in the matter of Jamshed Ali V/s Ms. Kishwar Jama in the
file of Writ Petition No. 17242 of 2014 (I)
|
A-3
|
60 TO 61
|
|
8.
|
Application for
grant of stay alongwith affidavit
|
|
62 TO 64
|
|
9.
|
Vakalatnama
|
|
65
|
PLACE :
JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE
FOR APPLICANT
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
REVIEW
PETITION NO. OF 2017.
CAUSE
TITLE
APPLICANT/ : SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT/ : JIYAUDDIN
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
|
S.No
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1.
|
28.03.2013
|
An oral sale
agreement was executed by defendant to sale the suit house in favour of
plaintiff on a consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- and earnest money of
Rs.12,00,000/-. In case the defendant failed to repay the at once, within a
period of 24 months from the date of its execution, the sale deed would be
executed. Till than rent of the suit accommodation was to be paid by
plaintiff to the defendant @ Rs.1200/- per month.
|
|
2.
|
05.01.2015
|
this Hon’ble High
Court passed an Order dated 05.01.2015 in the matter of Jamshed Ali V/s Ms.
Kishwar Jama in the file of Writ Petition No. 17242 of 2014 (I) holding that The
suit is at pre-trial stage and the proposed amendment would avoid
multiplicity of the litigation. The proposed amendment appears to be
necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in
the suit between the parties. The order passed by this Hon’ble High Court suffers
from an error apparent on the face of the record.
|
|
3.
|
23.02.2016
|
Applicant
/plaintiff had filed a Regular Civil Suit on 23.02.2016 for a Decree of
Permanent Injunction against the non-applicant/ defendant that they shall not
be dispossessed from the suit accommodation except in accordance with law and
they shall be restrained not to make false complaints. Costs of the suit have
also been prayed for.
|
|
4.
|
27.10.2016
|
Defendant is the
brother-in-law (donor/ looser) of plaintiff. During pendency of the suit an
application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was
filed by plaintiff’s inter-alia
contending that there was an oral agreement of sale executed by the defendant
in the presence of the witnesses with plaintiff in consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-
and earnest money for sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was already paid to defendant.
Plaintiff is ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by paying the
balance consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. Therefore by amendment a Decree of
Declaration was sought to be added for, that they are entitled for to get the
sale deed executed by paying the balance consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- in
addition to the relief of permanent injunction, alongwith corresponding
pleading in the memo of plaint.
|
|
5.
|
30.11.2016
|
Defendants
filed their reply denying all the adverse allegations contentions raised
against them.
|
|
6.
|
24.03.2017
|
The
Court below by going into merit of amendment sought for, rejected the
application by impugned Order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Court of Mr.
Sukh Ram Sinam, II Civil Judge Class-I,
Bhopal (M. P.), in the matter of Saiyyad Athar Ali V/s Jiyauddin in the file
of Regular Civil Suit No. 178-A of 2016.
|
|
7.
|
10.04.2017
|
Applicant
/ plaintiff preferred a review petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at
Jabalpur against the impugned Order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Court of
Mr. Sukh Ram Sinam, II Civil Judge Class-I,
Bhopal (M. P.), in the matter of Saiyyad Athar Ali V/s Jiyauddin in the file
of Regular Civil Suit No. 178-A of 2016.
|
|
8.
|
16.08.2017
|
An Order Dated 16.08.2017
Passed By This Hon’ble High Court in The Matter Of Saiyyad Athar Ali Versus
Jiyauddin in The File Of Writ Petition
No. 5470 Of 2017 (I) was passed the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
|
|
9.
|
|
Applicant / plaintiff
preferred a review petition Review Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur arising Out Of An Order Dated
16.08.2017 Passed By This Hon’ble High Court In The Matter Of Saiyyad Athar
Ali Versus Jiyauddin In The File Of
Writ Petition No. 5470 Of 2017 (I).
|
PLACE :
JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE
FOR APPLICANT
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
REVIEW
PETITION NO. OF 2017.
CAUSE
TITLE
APPLICANT/ :
SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI, Aged about 46
Plaintiff years, S/o Late Mr. Mazhar Ali,
Occupation –
Business, R/o House No. 62, Masjid Munshi Hussain Khan, Near Unani Shafakhana,
Noor Mahal Road, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT/ : JIYAUDDIN, Aged about 40 years, Defendant S/o
Late Mr. Shamshuddin, R/o
House
No. 47, Old RTO Office, Shahjahanabad, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).
Address
of Shop : Shop No. 3, Nadra Complex, Sultania Road, State Bank Square, Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh).
REVIEW
PETITION ARISING OUT OF AN ORDER DATED 16.08.2017 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE HIGH
COURT IN THE MATTER OF SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI VERSUS JIYAUDDIN IN THE FILE OF WRIT PETITION NO. 5470 OF 2017
(I)
Applicant named above most humbly and respectfully begs
to submit as under :
Material
facts of the case :
1. By
preferring the petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India invoking
the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court whereby calling in
question the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the portion impugned
order dated 24.03.2017 whereby and wherein an application filed by the applicants
/ plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC for amendment has been rejected by
the Court below inspite of the fact that no written statement has been filed
and trial has not been commenced.
2. From
the perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant had filed the suit
seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Even before filing of written
statement, the applicant filed an application for amendment of the plaint.
However, the trial court has rejected the aforesaid application, inter alia, on
the ground that in case the proposed amendment is allowed, the nature of the
suit would be changed. From the perusal of the application for proposed
amendment, it is evident that besides injunction, the plaintiff, by way of proposed
amendment, the applicant wanted to incorporate the relief of declaration. The
suit is at pre-trial stage and the proposed amendment would avoid multiplicity
of the litigation. The proposed amendment appears to be necessary for a fair
and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit between the
parties. The impugned order passed by trial Court suffers from an error
apparent on the face of the record.
3. Applicant
/plaintiff had filed a Regular Civil Suit on 23.02.2016 for a Decree of
Permanent Injunction against the non-applicant/ defendant that they shall not
be dispossessed from the suit accommodation except in accordance with law and
they shall be restrained not to make false complaints. Costs of the suit have
also been prayed for. Notices have been issued by the Trial Court and non-applicant/
defendant have appeared in the suit.
4. Defendant
is the brother-in-law (donor/ looser) of plaintiff. An oral sale agreement was
executed by defendant to sale the suit house in favour of plaintiff on a
consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- and earnest money of Rs.12,00,000/- with a
condition that in case the defendant failed to repay the at once, within a
period of 24 months from the date of its execution, the sale deed would be
executed. Till than rent of the suit accommodation was to be paid by plaintiff
to the defendant @ Rs.1200/- per month.
5. During
pendency of the suit an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 was filed by plaintiff’s inter-alia
contending that there was an oral agreement of sale executed by the defendant
in the presence of the witnesses with plaintiff in consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-
and earnest money for sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was already paid to defendant.
Plaintiff is ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by paying the
balance consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. Therefore by amendment a Decree of
Declaration was sought to be added for, that they are entitled for to get the
sale deed executed by paying the balance consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- in
addition to the relief of permanent injunction, alongwith corresponding
pleading in the memo of plaint. Defendants filed their reply denying all the
adverse allegations contentions raised against them.
6. The
Court below by going into merit of amendment sought for, rejected the
application by impugned Order dated 24.03.2017. Applicant had challenged the
most arbitrary and illegal order passed by the Court below. Copy of the Writ
petition together with all the Annexures is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1. This Hon’ble Court
was pleased to kind enough in passing an Order on 16.08.2017. Certified Copy of
the Order dated 16.08.2017 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-2. Hence this review petition on the following
grounds amongst others :
Grounds urged :
A. Because,
from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant had filed the
suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Even before filing of written
statement, the applicant filed an application for amendment of the plaint.
However, the trial court has rejected the aforesaid application, inter alia, on
the ground that in case the proposed amendment is allowed, the nature of the
suit would be changed. From the perusal of the application for proposed
amendment, it is evident that besides injunction, the plaintiff, by way of proposed
amendment, the applicant wanted to incorporate the relief of declaration. The
suit is at pre-trial stage and the proposed amendment would avoid multiplicity
of the litigation. The proposed amendment appears to be necessary for a fair
and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit between the
parties. The order passed by this Hon’ble High Court suffers from an error
apparent on the face of the record.
B. Because
this Hon’ble High Court passed an Order dated 05.01.2015 in the matter of
Jamshed Ali V/s Ms. Kishwar Jama in the file of Writ Petition No. 17242 of 2014
(I) holding that The suit is at pre-trial stage and the proposed amendment
would avoid multiplicity of the litigation. The proposed amendment appears to
be necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved
in the suit between the parties. The order passed by this Hon’ble High Court suffers
from an error apparent on the face of the record. Copy of the Order dated
05.01.2015 in the matter of Jamshed Ali V/s Ms. Kishwar Jama in the file of
Writ Petition No. 17242 of 2014 (I) is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-3.
C. The
Court below ought to have appreciated that since no written statement has been
filed yet therefore no prejudice is cause to defendants in case the application
for amendment is allowed.
D. The
Court below filed to appreciate that plaintiffs can be permitted to pray for
additional relief flowing from the same cause of action and facts mentioned in
the plaint even at this stage as the same is not going to cause hardship or
injustice to defendants as held by the Hon’ble high Court of Delhi in the case
of M/s Allahabad Law Journal Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Skyways Construction Corporation
and Ors. reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 9.
E. The
court below ought to have appreciated that "As regards the first contention, we are afraid that the courts below
have gone wrong in holding that it is not open to the defendant to amend his statement
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by taking a contrary stand than was stated originally
in the written statement. This is opposed to the settled law open to a
defendant to take even contrary stands or contradictory stands, the cause of
action is not in any manner affected. That will apply only to a case of the
plaint being amended so as to introduce a new cause of action." As
held by the apex Court in the case of Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v. Sukhnandan
Ramdas Chaudhary (Dead)Through the LR’s and others reported in 1995 Supp (3)
SCC 179.
F. The
Court below is competent to allow either party to alter or amend his pleading
as held by this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Kamta Prasad and Ors. vs Smt.
Vidyawati And Ors. decided on 3 May, 1994 reported in AIR 1994 MP 181 = 1995
MPLJ 127 = 1995 JLJ 178.
G. The
Court below committed grave error and irregularity in not considering that in
the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu & Anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369
= 2002 AIR SCW 3925 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that amendment of pleadings is permissible even if
the version of a suit for permanent injunction into a suit for declaration for
title and recovery of possession is said to be changed for the reason that it
would violate multiplicity of litigation, and in case where an independent suit
is maintainable, there is no reason as to why same relief cannot be sought by
an amendment in the plaint. In order to curtail the multiplicity of the legal
proceedings, amendment should be allowed. While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments in Mst Rukhmabai vs.
Lala Laxminarayan & ors., AIR 1960 SC 335 and Siddalingamma & Anr. vs.
Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that
such an application should be allowed even if it is filed at a belated stage.
The Supreme Court further held that it is not permissible for the trial court
to examine the correctness or genuineness of the contents of the application at
the time of entertainment stage in such an application, observing as under:-
"The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for
the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency
of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of
amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for
amendment."
H. The
procedural law is always meant to provide justice to the parties. The Supreme
Court in Shail (Smt.) vs. Manoj Kumar and others, 2004(3) MPLJ (SC) 336 =
(2004) 4 SCC 785 while highlighting the powers conferred to this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has held that the High Court does
have powers to make such directions as the facts and circumstances of case may
warrant, may be, by way of guiding inferior Court or Tribunal or as to the
manner in which it would proceed. The Apex Court further held that the High
Court has jurisdiction to pass itself such a decision or direction as the
inferior Court or Tribunal should have made although this power should be
exercised sparingly. In another decision State of A. P. vs. P. V. Hanumantha
Rao and another, (2003) 10 SCC 121 the Supreme Court has held that these powers
can be exercised by the High Court if the legal provision involved has been
misinterpreted or misapplied resulting in error apparent on the face of the
proceedings as held by this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pandit Ramgopal
Pujari Versus Pandit Akhilesh Kumar reported in 2011 (4) MPLJ 188.
I.
No Special Leave Petition or Writ Appeal has
been filed, challenging the order, in respect of which review petition has been
averred.
Caveat :
That, no notice of lodging
a caveat by the opposite party is received.
PRYAER
It is therefore most humbly and respectfully
prayed that the Order Dated 16.08.2017 Passed By This Hon’ble High Court in The
Matter Of Saiyyad Athar Ali Versus Jiyauddin
in The File Of Writ Petition No. 5470 Of 2017 (I), may kindly be
reviewed, in the larger interest of Justice.
Any other relief or direction deems fit and
proper may also be granted looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case.
PLACE
:
JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE
FOR APPLICANT
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
REVIEW
PETITION NO. OF 2017 (I).
CAUSE
TITLE
APPLICANT/ : SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT/ : JIYAUDDIN
AFFIDAVIT
I, SAIYYAD
ATHAR ALI, Aged about 46 years, S/o Late Mr. Mazhar Ali, R/o House No. 62,
Masjid Munshi Hussain Khan, Near Unani Shafakhana, Noor Mahal Road, Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh), the above named deponent, solemnly affirm and state on oath
as under:
1.
That
I am the Applicant in the above mentioned review petition and am fully
conversant with the facts deposed to in the Review Petition.
2.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 6 of the
accompanying review petition are true to my personal knowledge and the contents
of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be true. No
material has been concealed and no part is false.
3.
That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-3 to the
accompanying review petition are true copies of the originals and I have
compared the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to
be true copies thereof.
PALCE : JABALPUR
DATED : DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI, the above named
deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit above are
true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or
falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
REVIEW PETITION NO. OF 2017 (I).
CAUSE
TITLE
APPLICANT/ : SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT/ : JIYAUDDIN
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
Memo of writ
petition together with all the Annexures
|
23.02.2016
|
Xerox Copy
|
38
|
|
2.
|
Order Dated
16.08.2017 Passed By This Hon’ble High Court In The Matter Of Saiyyad Athar
Ali Versus Jiyauddin In The File Of
Writ Petition No. 5470 Of 2017 (I)
|
27.10.2016
|
Certified Copy
|
03
|
|
3.
|
Order dated
05.01.2015 in the matter of Jamshed Ali V/s Ms. Kishwar Jama in the file of
Writ Petition No. 17242 of 2014 (I)
|
30.11.2016
|
Xerox Copy
|
02
|
PLACE
:
JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE
FOR APPLICANT
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
REVIEW
PETITION NO. OF 2017 (I).
CAUSE
TITLE
APPLICANT/ : SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT/ : JIYAUDDIN
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF STAY
Applicant named above most
humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:
1) Applicant
has preferred the instant review petition arising out of an Order Dated
16.08.2017 Passed By This Hon’ble High Court In The Matter Of Saiyyad Athar Ali
Versus Jiyauddin In The File Of Writ
Petition No. 5470 Of 2017 (I), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the impugned Order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Court of Mr. Sukh Ram
Sinam, II Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal (M. P.), in the matter of Saiyyad
Athar Ali V/s Jiyauddin in the file of Regular Civil Suit No. 178-A of 2016
whereby and whereunder an application filed by applicant under Order 6, Rule 17
of CPC has been rejected by the Court below.
2) As
per the averments made by the applicant in the memo of review petition, he has a
good prima facie case in his favour. If the proceeding pending before the Court
below is allowed to continue it would cause irreparable loss and injury to applicant
against whom the impugned order has been passed by the Court below. The balance
of convenience too lies in his favour.
3) From
the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, in the preceding paras, it is
expedient in the larger interest of Justice that the proceeding pending before
the Court below be stayed during pendency of the instant review petition.
An
affidavit in support of this review petition is being filed herewith.
PRAYER
It
is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that pending final disposal of
the instant review petition the proceeding pending before the Court of Mr. Sukh Ram
Sinam, II Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal (M. P.), in the matter of Saiyyad
Athar Ali V/s Jiyauddin in the file of Regular Civil Suit No. 178-A of 2016, may
kindly be stayed in the larger interest of Justice.
PLACE
:
JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
REVIEW
PETITION NO. OF 2017 (I).
CAUSE
TITLE
APPLICANT/ : SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT/ : JIYAUDDIN
AFFIDAVIT
I, SAIYYAD
ATHAR ALI, Aged about 46 years, S/o Late Mr. Mazhar Ali, R/o House No. 62,
Masjid Munshi Hussain Khan, Near Unani Shafakhana, Noor Mahal Road, Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh), the above named deponent, solemnly affirm and state on oath
as under:
1.
That
I am the Applicant in the above mentioned review petition and am fully
conversant with the facts deposed to in the Review Petition.
2.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the
accompanying application for grant of stay are true to my personal knowledge
and the contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be
true. No material has been concealed and no part is false.
3.
That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-4 to the
accompanying review petition are true copies of the originals and I have
compared the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to
be true copies thereof.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED
: DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI, the above named
deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit above are
true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or
falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules 4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961]
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.
REVIEW
PETITION NO. OF 2017 (I).
CAUSE
TITLE
APPLICANT/ : SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT/ : JIYAUDDIN
I, the applicant named below do hereby appoint, engage and
authorize advocate (s) named below to appear, act and plead in aforesaid case /
proceeding, which shall include applications for restoration, setting aside for
ex - parte orders, corrections, modifications, review and recall of orders
assed in these proceedings, in this Court or in any other Court in which the
same may be tried / heard / proceeded with and also in the appellate,
revisional or executing Court in respect of the proceedings arising from this
case / proceedings as per agreed terms and conditions and authorize them to
sign and file pleadings , appeals,
cross objections, petitions, applications, affidavits, or the other documents
as may be deemed necessary and proper for the prosecution / defence of the said case in all its stages
and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them as if done by me.
In witness whereof I do
hereby set my hands to these presents, the contents of which have been duly
understood by me, this ___ day of April,
2017 at Jabalpur.
Particulars (in block
letters) of each Party Executing Vakalatnama
|
Name and father s / Husband s Name
|
Registered Address
|
E-Mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if any)
|
Status in the case
|
Full Signature/ **Thumb
Impression
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
(6)
|
|
SAIYYAD ATHAR ALI, Aged
about 46 years, S/o Late Mr. Mazhar Ali,
|
R/o House No. 62, Masjid
Munshi Hussain Khan, Near Unani Shafakhana, Noor Mahal Road, Bhopal (Madhya
Pradesh)
|
|
|
APPLICANT
|
|
Accepted
Particulars (in block
letters) of each Advocate Accepting Vakalatnama
|
|
Full Name
& Enrollment No. in State Bar Council
|
Address for
Service
|
E-mail
Address (if any)
|
Telephone
Number (if any)
|
Full
Signature
|
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
|
1.
|
VIJAY RAGHAV
SINGH
EN. No. M. P.
/ ADV / 1554 / 2003
|
SEAT NO. 93,
GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES,
JABALPUR 482 001
|
IDEA 98261-43925
|
|
|
|
2.
|
AMIT KUMAR
KHARE,
EN. No. M. P.
/ ADV / 1291/ 2006
|
HOUSE NO.
1483 / 17, SARASWATI COLONY, BEHIND PARIJAT BUILDING, CHERITAL, JABALPUR 482
001
|
amitkumarkhare2012@gmail.com
|
BSNL 94258 66726
LAND LINE 0761 - 2345 004
|
|
|
3.
|
VIJAY KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV /
949/ 2006
|
SEAT NO. 81,
HALL NO. 1, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
|
NIL
|
RIM 93015 04927
AIRTEL 97554 82448
IDEA 97539 13103
|
|
*Score out which is not applicable
** The thumb impression shall be attested by a literate person
giving above particulars.
Basavan Jaggu Dhobi v.
Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary (Dead) Through LRs. and others [1995 Supp. (3) SCC
179]
Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu
(AIR 2002 SC 3369).
PANDIT RAMGOPAL PUJARI V/S
PANDIT AKHILESH KUMAR & ANOTHER, decided on Monday, February 28,
2011.
2011(4) MPLJ 188,
Kamta Prasad And
Ors. vs Smt. Vidyawati And Ors. on 3 May, 1994. Reported in AIR 1994 MP 181, 1995 (0) MPLJ 127 = 1995 JLJ
198
No comments:
Post a Comment