Madhya Pradesh High Court
Haresingh vs Gulabsingh on 2 February, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 1341 of 2020
Between:-
HARESINGH S/O NARAYAN SINGH , AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: KHETI VILLAGE KOTHIDA, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
DEVISINGH S/O NARAYANSINGH , AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: AGRICUTURIST R/O: GRAM KOTHIDI , TEHSIL ,
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
VIJAYSINGH S/O NARAYANSINGH , AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM KOTHIDA, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. YADAV, ADVCOATE )
AND
GULABSINGH S/O LATE UMRAO SINGH , AGED ABOUT 75
1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: KHETI VILLAGE DUGANI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
RATANSINGH S/O UMRAOSINGH , AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SOBHARAM S/O LATE INDERSINGH , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUMAN S/O INDERSINGH , AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUBHADRA S/O INDERSINGH , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
5. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
MADHAVSINGH S/O GANGASINGH , AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
6. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHIVABAI W/O LATE GANGASINGH , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
7. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
PINKI D/O GANGASINGH , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
8. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
RUKMANI W/O PRAHLADSINGH , AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
9. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SANTOSH S/O PRAHLADSINGH , AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
10. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHIVKANT S/O PRAHLADSINGH , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
11. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SEMALI S/O PRAHALADSINGH , AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
12. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
MENALI D/O PRAHALAD SINGH , AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
13. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O: GRAM DUGNI, TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
MADHAYA PRADESH STATE THR. JILADHISH MAHODAYA
14.
JILADHISH KARYALAYA , DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1
AND MS.HARSHLATA SONI, PL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 14 )
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 05/02/2020 passed by Additional District Judge,
Dharampuri, District - Dhar in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 4/2019,
whereby the Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioners has been
dismissed.
2. Grievance of the petitioners is that he has filed a suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction along with an application
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC before the trial Court and
the trial court has rejected his application. Thereafter, the petitioner
preferred Miscellaneous Appeal before the first Appellate Court, which
was also dismissed vide impugned order.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the relevant documents filed along with present petition.
4. The plaintiffs have instituted a civil suit no. 18-A/2018
before the first Civil Judge,Class-I, Dharampuri, District - Dhar for
declaration and permanent injunction. The Civil Judge has considered
all the relevant documents filed by both the parties and prima-facie, it
is found that the disputed land is recorded in the name of the
defendant/s and the plaintiffs' possession has not been found over the
suit property, therefore, in the trial Court, the petitioners/plaintiffs have
failed to prove their prima-facie case in respect of the title and
possession of the suit property. Hence, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss are not in their favour. Both the courts below have
concurrently recorded the findings on the issues i.e. balance of
convenience and irreparable loss not in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence
in the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the said findings are not liable to be interfered.
6. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The
Supreme court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs.
Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that
High court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere
to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than
the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible
view. The High court can exercise this power when there has been a
patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and courts subordinate to it
or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the
basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
7. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as no patent illegality
has been committed by the courts below and the order passed by the
courts below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court
does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated
05/02/2020
Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is hereby, dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by AMOL N
MAHANAG
Date: 2022.02.03 11:58:08 +05'30'
