Suresh vs Madanlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 2351 MP

                            -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

                          BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                ON THE 21st OF FEBRUARY, 2022



               MISC. PETITION No. 2847 of 2021

  Between:-
  SURESH S/O MANGILAL PATIDAR,
  AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
  GRAM NAYAPURA, TEHSIL BAGLI (M. P.)
                                                 .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI DINESH KUMAR RATHORE, ADVOCATE)

  AND

1. MADANLAL S/O PUNJRAM PATIDAR,
   AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
   GRAM NAYAPURA, TEHSIL BAGLI (M. P.)

2. DEVI SINGH S/O BAPUSINGH SENDHAV,
   AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
   SINGAWADA, TEH HATPIPLIYA,
   DIST DEWAS (M. P.)

3. INDERSINGH S/O BAPUSINGH SENDHAV,
   AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
   131, L.I.G. VISHW BANK COLONY,
   UJJAIN (M. P.)

4. MAHENDRA SINGH S/O BAPUSINGH SENDHAV,
   AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
   SINGAWADA, TEH HATPIPLIYA,
   DIST DEWAS (M. P.)

5. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR,
   COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS (M. P.)
                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                                    -2-


      This Miscellaneous Petition coming this day, the court passed

the following:

                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 20/02/2015

passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Bagli, impugned order

dated 06/05/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Bagli,

impugned order dated 25/07/2017 passed by the Additional Civil

Judge Class-II, Bagli, impugned order dated 29/11/2019 passed by II

Additional District Judge, Bagli, District Dewas, whereby

Miscellaneous Appeal No.02/2017 has been dismissed and order

dated 25/07/2017 has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent

No.1 / plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the petitioner, respondents

No.2, 3 and 4 / defendants for declaration of title and other reliefs,

which has been decreed by the Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Bagli

vide judgment and decree dated 06/05/2015. Thereafter, the petitioner

filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC along with an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Civil Judge

Class-II, Bagli, which has been dismissed vide order dated

25/07/2017.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous appeal against

the aforesaid order before the II Additional District Judge, Bagli, which

has also been dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide order dated

29/11/2019. The petitioner is a illiterate person of rural background. He

is not aware with the legal proceeding and due to his poor financial

condition, he could not file appeal within limitation. Therefore, looking

to the Corona Pandemic condition such delay should be condoned.

Learned counsel further submits that all the Courts below had

passed the impugned orders without considering the legal aspects.

The impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court and other

orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Bagli are bad in

law and contrary to the law and facts. Hence, he prays that all the

impugned orders be set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused all the

relevant documents filed along with the petition.

On careful perusal of the record and after considering the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is

of the considered view that the trial Court has applied correct principle

of law in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX

Rule 13 of the CPC. Ignorance of law in respect of petitioner is no

excuse and petitioner did not produce any sufficient cause for his non-

appearance before the trial Court on the date of hearing because he

had been duly represented by the counsel before all the Courts below.

Misc. Appeal was also preferred by the petitioner after lapse of the

prescribed limitation period and even he had not filed any application

for condonation of such delay before the First Appellate Court.

Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is of the considered view that all the impugned orders

passed by the Courts below are just and proper. Hence, I do not find

any irregularity, illegality or infirmity in all the impugned orders passed

by the Courts below.

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.

Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the matter in

exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The

petition sans merits and is hereby, dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2022.02.22 18:03:16 -08'00'