Babu Shah vs Rasso Bi @ Raseeda Bi
2021 Latest Caselaw 6979 MP

                                      1




            The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                           CONC-2079-2021
          (BABU SHAH AND OTHERS Vs RASSO BI @ RASEEDA BI AND OTHERS)



Jabalpur, Dated : 28.10.2021


      Mr. Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Learned counsel for the petitioners, though has filed a contempt

petition, is not in a position to answer specific query put forward by this

Court as to on which date mutation / partition took place as is mentioned

in the order dated 29.09.2021 in pursuance of the judgment and decree

passed by the learned Civil Court on 14.03.2016.

      This being the crux of the matter and whether contempt

proceedings can be initiated or not will depend upon the date on which

the said mutation / partition took place in revenue records. If mutation

took place prior to 28.08.2017 when interim order was passed in

S.A.No.920/2017 then no contempt can be said to have been committed,

however, if mutation / partition took place after 28.08.2017 when the

petitioner communicated this order to the Collector who is a formal party

in the second appeal, then the aspect of issuing notice in the contempt

petition will arise, therefore, petitioner is directed to bring on record the

date along with the relevant orders from the revenue Court to
                                        2

substantiate that the mutation / partition in the revenue records took place

after 28.08.2017 and petitioners' counsel is also directed to bring on

record copy of the acknowledgment demonstrating that the order dated

28.08.2017 which was passed behind the back of the Collector Sehore

was communicated to the Collector, Sehore.

         Let these documents be brought on record within 15 days.

         List in the week commencing 06.12.2021.

         At this stage, Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the order passed by the High Court is a biparty

order.

         Order dated 28.08.2017 passed in S.A. No. 920/2017 is reproduced

herein under for ready reference and better understanding or

interpretation of the order :-

                "Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the appellants.
                Shri Siddharth Sonkar, learned counsel for the
         respondents on caveat.

The records of the courts below have not yet been received.

Counsel for the appellants submits that there is a decree for partition.

Considering the averments made in I.A. No.10895/2017, till the next date of hearing the partition proceedings shall continue but no final decree of partition shall be passed.

List for admission immediately after the records are received.

Certified copy as per rules."

A perusal of the order reveals that it is not a biparty order but one

Mr. Siddharth Sonkar appeared on caveat. It is now again an issue to be

addressed by Mr. Zargar as to whether Mr. Siddharth Sonkar had

appeared as counsel for the private respondents on caveat or for the

Collector as well.

(Vivek Agarwal) Judge

Vikram

Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH

VIKRAM DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5e3bf9b63759d9c0513833048a4728 3c8f66732878c5d090341a0b75ce6d1e91,

SINGH pseudonym=0AEDD33AA7448729F1E72B903F 78F04027BCFA24, serialNumber=FDD89E77C40EC11A8EC3AAAD EF0E2E7DAFEC93C010D5EFB1CD4A15D8A674 147A, cn=VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2021.10.29 18:19:11 +05'30'