Trilokchand Badarya vs Gyanchand Badarya
2021 Latest Caselaw 6614 MP

                                                                         1

                                                                                                      M.P. No.3547/2021



                                               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             M.P. No.3547/2021
                                                (Trilokchand Badarya Vs. Gyanchand Badarya)

                                        Jabalpur, Dated: 21.10.2021.

                                              Shri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
                                              The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the trial Court
                                        to take his written statement on record.
                                        2-    The fact reflects that the respondent, who is though real

brother of the petitioner, had filed a civil suit against the petitioner for eviction claiming that he was his licensee. During the trial, the right of the petitioner to file written statement was closed and the order was confirmed by the High Court also. The suit was decreed. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate Court set-aside the decree and remanded the case with a direction to frame a particular issue and pass an appropriate judgment after taking evidence of both the parties and granting them opportunity of hearing.

3- Paragraphs 43 and 45 of judgment of the appellate Court, germane to the present controversy, reads as under:-

^^¼43½ oknh dh vksj ls crkSj vuqKfIr izfroknh dks fn;s x;s edku izkIr djus ds fy;s vkKkRed fu"ks/kkKk gsrq okni= izLrqr fd;k gSA fxj/kj tsBk ,oa vU; cuke E;qfulhiy dkiksZjs'ku }kjk dfe'uj uxj fuxe tcyiqj 2016 ¼3½ ,e-ih-,y-ts- 181 U;k;n`"Vkar ds lanHkZ esa ;g Li"V gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky;

dks ,d fopkj.kh; iz'u ;g Hkh fufeZr djuk pkfg;s Fkk fd ^^D;k oknh izfroknh ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd izfroknh oknxzLr LFky esa fufeZr viuk dCtk gVkdj oknh ls crkSj vuqKfIr tSlk dCtk oknxzLr Hkwfe dk izkIr fd;k Fkk] oSlk gh dCtk oknh dks iznku djsxkA Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2021.10.22 17:50:34 IST

M.P. No.3547/2021

¼45½ vr% fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa vkKfIr fnukad 26-08-2017 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk [email protected] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks ;g izdj.k bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; mDr fopkj.kh; iz'u ds laca/k esa mHk;i{k dks lk{; dk volj iznku djus ds ckn rFkk mHk;i{k dks mDr laca/k esa lqus tkus ds mijkar xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA** 4- The petitioner approached the trial Court by filing an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. to permit him to file written statement.

5- Admittedly, the right to file written statement was earlier closed and the order was upheld by the High Court. No new facts had been brought on record and the appellate Court considered the pleadings already on record. While remanding the case back to the trial Court, the appellate Court has not directed the trial Court to grant opportunity to file the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings already available on record, the appellate Court considered that one more issue was necessary and directed the trial Court as stated above. 6- Therefore, I am not inclined to intervene in the order of the trial Court. The petition sans merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

(Virender Singh) Judge @shish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2021.10.22 17:50:34 IST