Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhujagraj Mishra vs Smt. Indra Devi Sharma on 22 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 783 of 2022
Between:-
1. BHUJAGRAJ MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI
RAMESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA , AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O NEAR
MAHOBA CHHATARPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANAND MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR
PRASAD MISHRA , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O NEAR
MAHOBA CHHATARPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VIJAY MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR
PRASAD MISHRA , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O NEAR
MAHOBA CHHATARPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.K. SAXENA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. INDRA DEVI SHARMA W/O LATE SHRI
RAMNARAYAN SHARMA OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
WARD NO. 26 MAHAL ROAD PARWARI MUHALLA
CHHATARPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI
RAMNARAYAN SHARMA OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
WARD NO. 26 MAHAL ROAD PARWARI MUHALLA
CHHATARPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI
RAMNARAYAN SHARMA OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
WARD NO. 26 MAHAL ROAD PARWARI MUHALLA
CHHATARPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI
RAMNARAYN SHARMA OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
WARD NO. 26 MAHAL ROAD PARWARI MUHALLA
CHHATARPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHIVRAM
Signature Not Verified
SHARMA OCCUPATION: NIL R/O NEAR GANJI KE
SAN
HANUMAN JI UNNAO ROAD DATIYA TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT DATIYA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.02.24 10:51:13 IST
6. SMT. ANJALI SHARMA D/O LATE SHRI SHIVRAM
2
SHARMA W/O K.D. MISHRA OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
A-316 CHINAR BUDLEND CHUNA BHATTI KOLAR
ROAD BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. SMT. ARCHNA D/O LATE SHRI SHIVRAM SHARMA
W/O R.S. KHADDAR OCCUPATION: NIL 68 D.K.
KOTEJEJ AHEAD DANA PANI RESTAURANT
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. ALOK KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI SHIVRAM
SHARMA OCCUPATION: IL R/O INDRAPRASTHA
GARDEN BESIDE FOUR SEASON HOTEL SAGAR
ROAD CHHATARPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SMT. SHAILEJA D/O LATE SHRI SHIVRAM
SHARMA W/O K.K. MISHRA OCCUPATION: NIL R/O
KHERE KIN DEVI MARG ABOVE NALA
CHHATARPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR CHHATARPUR TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed challenging the order dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P/6) passed by trial Court
whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. has been rejected.
It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a civil suit seeking
declaration of title and recovery of possession against the respondent Nos. 5 to 9.
The same is pending consideration. It is further submitted that earlier a civil suit
bearing No.1-A/2013 was preferred by late Shivram Sharma which was dismissed
by the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2015 and in the instant suit, the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are legal heirs of late Shivram Sharma, who were impleaded
as party in the earlier civil suit after death of Shivram Sharma. A First Appeal
No.725/2015 preferred by the present petitioners is pending before this Court and
Signature Not Verified
SAN
is admitted for final hearing. It is submitted that as they were parties to the
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.02.24 10:51:13 IST proceedings in the earlier round of litigation, therefore, they are necessary parties
and affected parties in the civil suit pending before the trial Court.
A specific question was put to learned counsel for the petitioners whether
the property in question is the same subject matter as to that of earlier civil suit, he
fairly submits that property in question is the same subject matter. As it is admitted
by him that they were parties in the earlier round of litigation after the death of
Shivram Sharma and the first appeal is pending consideration which is already
admitted for final hearing. In such circumstances, there is no requirement to making
them party to the proceedings in the present suit. Whether the second civil suit with
the same property is maintainable, is yet to be considered by the trial Court. They
can raise all objections in the pending first appeal with respect of property in
question. In such circumstances, no illegality is committed by the trial Court in
rejecting the application.
I n a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is
having a limited scope of interference as this Court is exercising supervisory
jurisdiction. The law with respect to supervisory jurisdiction Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC
329, wherein certain guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court, which are
as under :-
"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution
is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no
jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or
perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure
that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another
view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be
made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of
facts and law in a routine manner."
After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and considering
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it
Signature Not Verified
appears that no illegality is committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
and the same does not call for any interference in the present petition.
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.02.24 10:51:13 IST
Petition sans merits and is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.02.24 10:51:13 IST
