Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs Union Of India on 6 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 726 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI MAHESH
LAL AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O. UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THR. THE DIVISIONAL
ENGINEER (NORTH) SOUTH EASTERN CENTRAL
RAILWAY BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTT.
UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJESH KUAMR S/O SHRI ROOPNARAYAN BRA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, STATION ROAD
UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUSHIL KUMAR S/O SHRI ROOPNARAYAN BRA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S
UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI W/O SUNDARLAL SACHDEV,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOSEIFE
UMARIYA P.S DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DEELCHAND S/O BAIJNATH GUPTA, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND
BUSINESS VILLAGE CHANDWAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
7. SMT. PRAMILA DUBEY W/O CHANDRAKANT
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
2
DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SMT. VEENA DEVI W/O KHEMCHAND SINDHI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SMT. ASHA DEVI W/O BHAGWANDAS KHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. SHRINATH S/O JAIPAL TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 40
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST NEAR
THE UMARIYA STATION P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SMT RATNA W/O A.P. DAS, AGED ABOUT 30
YE A R S , NEAR THE UMARIYA STATION P.S
UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. R.N SARKAR S/O LATE RADHACHARAN SARKAR
UMARIYA P.S (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SACCHIDANAND D/O DAROGA, AGED ABOUT 25
YE A R S , NEAR RAILWAY STATION UMARIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
14. RAMANUJSHARAN S/O SHIVNANDAN, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION
UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. SMT. ASHDEVI W/O RAMKUMAR KHATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE UMARIYA P.S (MADHYA PRADESH)
16. JAGDISH PRASAD S/O BHAIYALAL GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
KHALESAR UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
17. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O LEKHRAJ SINDHI, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
UMARIYA PS (MADHYA PRADESH)
18. SMT. KUSUM BAI W/O BASANTLAL PRAJAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VIKATGANJ KHAMARIYUA P.S
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
3
(MADHYA PRADESH)
19. VIVEKKUMAR S/O KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
20. SUDAMA PRASAD S/O KASHI PRASAD GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
21. ANIL KUMAR S/O RAMNARESH BRAMHAN, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S
UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
22. PRASHANT KUMAR S/O RAMNARESH BRAMHAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RAILWAY
EMPLOYEE STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S
UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
23. MANOHAR LAL S/O SHAMBHULAL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, STATION ROAD
UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
24. VIJAY KUMAR S/O PRABHUDAS BAGHWANI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
25. SMT. BHARTI W/O LATE MEKCHRAJ, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S
UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
26. MANIKLAL DAY S/O ASHUTOSH DAY, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, DAY COLONY UMARIYA P.S
(MADHYA PRADESH)
27. GOKAL RAI PAUL S/O AVINASHCHAND PAUL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, STATION ROAD
UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH. BANDHAVGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
28. MANOHARLAL S/O FERUMAL MALVANI, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
4
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
29. ASHOK KUMAR S/O GANESH CHAND SACHDEV,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
30. VIVEK KUMAR S/O KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
31. PURUSHOTTAM DAS S/O BABULAL SONI, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
32. GUMCH SINGH S/O CHANDRABHUSHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYED AT STATE BANK OF INDIA STATION
ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
33. SMT. KAMNI GUPTA W/O K.K GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
34. SMT. RITU GUPTA W/O RAMESH GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
STATION ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
35. SHEIKH SHAREEF SULTANI S/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYEE AT TELEPHONE DEPTT. STATION
ROAD UMARIYA P.S UMARIYA TEH.
BANDHAVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(UNION OF INDIA BY SHRI H.S.RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)
(STATE BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 being
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
aggrieved of judgment dated 18.12.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.17A/2017
whereby the learned District Judge, Umaria after setting aside the judgment &
decree dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Umaria in
Civil Suit No.6A/2010 has remanded the matter to the Court below for decision
afresh after taking certain documents on record by allowing the application
under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short
"C.P.C") and permitting the plaintiff/Union of India to lead further evidence in
the matter.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a bonafide
purchaser of the land in question from the party whose name was recorded in
the land revenue record and, therefore, the impugned judgment of remand at the
instance of the Union of India claiming that land in question was given to the
predecessor of the plaintiff i.e.South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur by the
Erstwhile Maharaja of Bandhavgarh, is factually incorrect and that land being a
Bhumiswami land, the remand order being mechanical in nature, deserves to be
set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M.Revanna versus Anjanamma (dead) By
Legal Representatives & Others 2020 (1) M.P.L.J 43 (SC) to contend that
if an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C seeking amendment filed
at belated stage is allowed then that would change the nature and character of
the suit and would lead to a travesty of justice and such amendment would
cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on Paragraph
Nos.27 to 30 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagdish
Prasad Patel (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Another versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
Shivnath & Others (2019) 6 SCC 82 to contend that the principles have been
enumerated by exercising the authority while taking documents on record under
Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. Since some of the documents in question are
already on record, there was no need for taking those documents on record and
permitting an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellant further places reliance on the judgment
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in J.Samuel & Others versus Taggu Mahesh
& Others 2012 (3) M.P.L.J 37 (SC) on the aspect of limitation on the Court
in allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of this
Hon'ble High Court in Peer Mohammad Saeed & Others versus State of
M.P. & Others 2010 (1) M.P.L.J 175 to contend that while making an
application under Order XLI Rule 47 of the C.P.C, the appellant has to
establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was
not within his knowledge or could not after the exercise of due diligence be
produced by him during pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on the judgment of
this Hon'ble High Court i n Rashid Khan S/o.Yasin Khan Musalman &
Another versus State of M.P. & Others 2011 (3) M.P.L.J 575 to contend
that the Court cannot entertain an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of
the C.P.C by the plaintiff in order to fill up the lacuna and if such application is
allowed then that will prejudice the other side and will reopen the entire case.
Learned counsel for the appellant further places reliance on the judgment
of this Hon'ble High Court in Abdul Hussain & Others versus State of M.P.
& Others 2013 (2) M.P.L.J 106 wherein it is held that allowing an application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
under Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C filed belatedly for bringing additional
evidence on record is meaningless since the evidence sought to be introduced is
not germane to the main issue.
Learned counsel for the appellant lastly places reliance on the judgment
of this Hon'ble High Court in Pushpa Arora versus Anita Arora & Others
2012 (1) M.P.L.J 710 to contend that the Court has to take into account the
well settled legal principles of law while deciding an application for amendment
filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. He submits that the impugned
judgment of remand is illegal & arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India submits that the issue
in the present case is not that the appellant had purchased the land through
registered sale deed but the issue is that on one hand, the appellant is saying that
the land in question is registered in the name of the State of Madhya Pradesh
and on the other hand, he is claiming his ownership through registered sale deed
but whether his predecessor had any title to transfer the land in question, which
was already registered in the name of the predecessor of South Eastern Central
Railway, Bilaspur, which was part of Bengal Nagpur Railway and was
transferred by Bengal Nagpur Railway in favour of South Eastern Central
Railway. He also submits that all these aspects have not been considered by the
Trial Court and arbitrarily the Trial Court had dismissed the suit holding that the
plaintiff/Union of India is neither the owner/possessor of the land contained in
Khasra No.1334 admeasuring 4.74 acres of land at Village Chhatan Camp,
District Umaria and is not entitled to seek possession of the said land. It was
observed that the plaintiff has no right to file a suit and the suit is inappropriately
stamped, barred by limitation and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and
decide the suit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
Learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India also submits that
once the Court observed that it has no jurisdiction to hear & decide the suit
then the other issues should not have been decided by it. The impugned
judgment of remand has been passed by learned District Judge, Umaria after
into consideration the various provisions of law and allowing the applications
filed under Order XIII Rule 10, Order VI Rule 17, Order XLI Rule 27 of the
C.P.C and Section 148 of the C.P.C and, therefore, it cannot be said to be
illegal or arbitrary inasmuch the impugned judgment of remand is in conformity
with the provisions contained in Order XLI of the C.P.C.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
material available on record, though it is true that law laid down by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court and this Hon'ble High Court in regard to application under
Order VI Rule 17 and Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C as has been pointed out
by learned counsel for the appellant is not to allow any amendment at a belated
stage or any application for taking document(s) at the appellate stage without
there being any cogent reason but it is also true as has been held by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu versus
Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 and Zolba versus Keshao & Others
AIR 2008 SC 2099 that construction of rule or procedure, which promotes
justice and prevents miscarriage, has to be preferred. The rules or procedures
are handmaid of justice and not its mistress.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the learned District Judge, Umaria
has taken into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter. Keeping
in view the fact that there exists a report of the then Sub Divisional Officer,
Bandhavgarh in regard to the status of the land in question, a party could not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
have been left remediless especially when the Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the facts and evidence properly. Thus, the impugned judgment of
remand dated 18.12.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.17A/2017 by learned
District Judge, Umaria being in consonance of the provisions of law does not
call for any interference.
Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Let record of the Court below be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
12/9/2022 6:49:04 PM
