SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs SATISH JAIN (DEAD)
BY LRS & ORS.
Civil Appeal No 6884 of 2012 On 18 April 2024
Hon'ble Judges: Vikram Nath, K.V. Viswanathan
Case Type: Civil Appeal
Final Decision:
Advocates:
Citations:
2024 0 CJ(SC) 205
ACTS REFERRED:
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 89
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 17
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96, Section 89, Order VI Rule 17 - Appeal from original decree - Settlement of disputes outsides the Court(B) Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases font-size: 16px;" > The Appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh, Hereinafter referred to as the, "State-Appellant"-Defendant
in the Original Suit filed by Satish Jain (Respondent
No.1), since deceased, represented by his legal heirs,
is in appeal assailing the correctness of the
judgment and order dated 112005 passed by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing Civil Revision
No.
Judgement Text
1. The Appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh, Hereinafter referred to as the, "State-Appellant"-Defendant
in the Original Suit filed by Satish Jain (Respondent
No.1), since deceased, represented by his legal heirs,
is in appeal assailing the correctness of the
judgment and order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing Civil Revision
No. 201 of 2005, titled "Satish Jain versus Rama &
Ors.", whereby the High Court set aside the order of
the Trial Court dated 22.12.2004, and further
directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance
with law to implement the award of the Arbitrator. It
also rejected the objections of the appellant dated
09.11.2004, and further the order rejecting the
report of the Arbitrator was also set aside. The
operative part of the impugned order as contained in
the paragraph 27 thereof is reproduced hereunder:
"27. Therefore, the order under revision is
set aside. The objection dated
09.11.2004 filed by respondent no.2
stands dismissed. The order rejecting
the report of the arbitrator is also set
aside. The Trial Court shall proceed
further according to law for
implementing the award."
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the
present appeal are briefly stated hereunder:
(i). Satish Jain s/o Dayanand Jain instituted a
civil suit impleading one Rama s/o
Parasram as defendant No.1 and State of
Madhya
