Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shantibai vs Manju on 2 August, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
M.P. No.2128/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
M.P. No. 2128 of 2021
(Shanti Bai W/o. Suresh Chandra Silawat & others. V/s. Manju
D/o. Radheshyam Devda & others.)
Date: 02.08.2021 :
Heard Shri Harsh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners on the
question of admission through video conferencing.
ORDER
The plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the present petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated
23.2.2021 passed by 7th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore rejecting the
application for temporary injunction; and order dated 31.3.2021 passed
by 16th Additional District Judge, Indore dismissing the Misc. Appeal
No. 18/2021 filed under Order 43 Rule1 of the C.P.C.
Facts of the case, in short, are as under :
The plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Sureshchandra Silawat
have filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
According to the plaintiffs, Late Bajranglal Sharma had rented the
shop in the Ground Floor of House No.7, Godbole Colony, Indore to
Late Sureshchandra Silawat. Late Bajranglal filed Civil Suit
No.119/2000 for eviction against Sureshchandra Silawat. The suit was
decreed in favour of Bajranglal. Thereafter, Sureshchandra Silawat
filed First Appeal No.31/2001 which was dismissed and thereafter
Second Appeal No.556/2002 was preferred before this Court and that
too was dismissed vide order dated 5.3.2020 by permitting the
appellant, Sureshchandra Silawat to occupy the shop in question up to
1.3.2021. During pendency of the Second Appeal, Sureshchandra
Silawat and Bajranglal both expired. The present plaintiffs/petitioners
were brought on record as legal heirs of Sureshchandra Silawat.
According to the petitioners, before filing the suit by Bajranglal, the
suit property was handed over to Bajranglal Dharmik Trust. After the
death of Bajranglal, defendants No.1 to 3 were brought on record as
- : 2 :-
M.P. No.2128/2021
legal heirs of Bajranglal on the basis of the Will and got dismissed the
First Appeal as well as Second Appeal. Therefore, defendants No.1 to
3 have no right to seek execution of the judgment and decree passed in
favour of Bajranglal. Learned trial Court has dismissed the application
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. and thereafter the plaintiffs
preferred Misc. Appeal and that too has been dismissed by the learned
Additional District Judge, hence the present petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the
judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.119-A/2000 although
affirmed up to the High Court cannot be executed at the instance of
defendants No.2 who are not the legal heirs of Bajranglal. There was
no relationship of landlord and tenant with them. Learned trial Court
as well as learned Additional District Judge have wrongly denied the
relief of temporary injunction.
The present petitioners/plaintiffs were brought on record as
appellants after the death of Sureshchandra Silawat in Second Appeal
before this Court. Defendants No.1 to 3 filed an application for
bringing them on record as legal heirs of Bajranglal. The petitioners
ought to have objected to the said application in the Second Appeal.
The petitioners have virtually withdrawn the Second Appeal before
this Court by getting time to vacate the shop in question up to 1.3.2021
subject to payment monthly rent regularly. In order to protect the
possession over the shop in question, the petitioners have filed the
present suit which is nothing but misuse of process of law. The
judgment of eviction has already attained finality. In the considered
opinion of this Court, both the courts below have not committed any
error of law while rejecting the application for temporary injunction.
No case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/- Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.08.03 17:40:15 +05'30'
