The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Digambar Jain Mandir ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5546 MP

                               1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         RP-673-2021
            State of MP Vs. Digambar Jain Mandir

Gwalior, Dated:16-09-2021

      This PUD has been received from the Court of 3 rd Civil Judge,

Junior Division, Gwalior through District and Sessions Judge,

Gwalior for extension of time.

      This Court by order dated 05.11.2019 passed in W.P.

No.5760/2019 had directed the Trial Court to decide the trial within a

period of nine months from the date of order and not to grant any

unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

      Earlier, a PUD was sent by the Trial Court which was

registered as RP No.845/2020 and it was decided by order dated

09.09.2020

and the Trial Court was granted further time of nine

months from the date of resumption of normal Court functioning.

It is mentioned in the PUD that accordingly on 23.11.2020

trial begun and the defendant No. 1 did not appear before the Trial

Court in spite of various notices and ultimately on 02.03.2021 it was

informed by the Trial Court for the first time that the defendant No. 1

has expired and, accordingly, the proceedings were initiated for

bringing her legal representatives on record. It is really shocking that

in spite of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of

Ankit Maheshwari @ Chintoo Vs. State of MP by order dated

14.08.2020 passed in SLP (Cri) No.11315/2019 as well as the

departmental circular dated 19.08.2020 issued by the Registry of this

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP-673-2021 State of MP Vs. Digambar Jain Mandir

Court, the Trial Court kept proceedings in abeyance on the basis of

administrative order. This conduct of the Trial Court cannot be

appreciated. Once it has been held by the Supreme Court that when

there is a judicial order to conclude the Trial, then the proceedings

cannot be kept in abeyance on the basis of any administrative order

and a circular in this regard has also been issued by the Registry of

this Court, but it appears that the Trial Court was deliberately

violating the dictum of the Supreme Court as well as general

guidelines of the Registry of this Court. It is always expected that the

District and Sessions Judge should have apprised the Trial Court

about the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of

Ankit Maheshwari (Supra), but even that was not done.

Be that whatever it may.

The District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior is directed to

immediately supply a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court

in the case of Ankit Maheshwari (Supra) as well as a copy of the

directions issued by the Registry of this Court, by which it was

directed that the cases in which there is a judicial direction would not

be covered by the general administrative directions issued by the

Registry. The Trial Courts are directed to comply the dictum of the

Supreme Court in its letter and spirit and should not keep the trial in

abeyance.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP-673-2021 State of MP Vs. Digambar Jain Mandir

Be that whatever it may.

It appears that after four months of the information to the

Court about the death of defendant No. 1, her legal representatives

were brought on record and, thereafter, even the legal representatives

of defendant No. 1 did not appear before the Trial Court and,

accordingly, they were proceeded ex parte on 30.07.2021. It is

mentioned in the PUD that thereafter various interlocutory

applications were filed by the defendants No. 2 and 3 and even the

legal representatives of the defendant No. 1 filed an application for

setting aside the ex parte proceedings, which have been disposed of.

It is mentioned in the PUD that since the defendants are not

cooperating and they are filling interlocutory applications and,

therefore, the trial could not be concluded.

Under these circumstances, the Trial Court is directed to

proceed on day to day basis for deciding the interlocutory

applications. Long adjournments are not necessary, therefore, it is

directed that whenever any interlocutory application is filed, the

opposite party must file his reply by the next working day and the

parties must argue on the said interlocutory application on the very

same day or latest by the following day and the Trial Court must pass

order on the said interlocutory application either on the same day or

by the next date of hearing of the said interlocutory application. No

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH RP-673-2021 State of MP Vs. Digambar Jain Mandir

interlocutory application should be allowed to remain pending for

more than five days. If any of the party is not cooperating, then the

Trial Court shall decide the said application ex parte.

By the PUD, the Trial Court has sought a further period of six

months.

Under these circumstances but with a heavy heart, PUD is

allowed. The Trial Court must ensure that the Trial is concluded

within a period of six months from today, failing which the District

and Sessions Judge, Gwalior is directed to observe in the Annual

Confidential Report of the concerning Judge about his failure to

comply the order of this Court as well as about his failure to

conclude the trial as early as possible.

With aforesaid observations, this PUD is finally disposed of.

Office is directed to immediately sent a copy of this order to

the Trial Court as well as to the District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior

for necessary information and compliance. The District and Sessions

Judge, Gwalior is directed to submit his compliance report to the

Principal Registrar of this Court on or before 27.03.2022.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.09.18 11:26:43 +05'30'