✦ Madhya Pradesh High Court

Judgment · High Court

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

find any error of jurisdiction, illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Court below that may call for its interference in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not the duty of the Court to collect evidence for a litigant. In case the petitioner is still using the suit shop for his business purposes, then onus is on him to prove the said fact before the Court below by producing oral and documentary evidence in this regard. By no means he can take the assistance of a local Commissioner to collect evidence for him that his machines are still lying there in the suit shop. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. ms/- (S.N. Aggarwal) Judge

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madhya Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments