Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajit Kumar Jain vs Gyanchand Jain on 28 February, 2022
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 2083 of 2020
Between:-
AJIT KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI RATAN CHAND JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/O. BAZAR CHOWK LAKHNADON DISTRICT
SREONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI JAI SHUKLA, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. GYANCHAND JAIN S/O LATE PHOOL CHAND JAIN ,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O. BAZAR CHOWK
LAKHNADON DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ARVIND KUMAR S/O GYAN CHAND JAIN AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. BAZAR CHOWK
LAKHNADON DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. BASANT KUMAR S/O RATAN CHAND JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, NIWARI TOLA ROAD
L A K H N A D O N DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE DASRATH JAIN
R/O. BAZAR CHOWK LAKHNADON DISTRICT
SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TULSA BAI W/O LATE JAWAHAR LAL JAIN PS
GANJBASODA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MANORAMA BAI W/O SHEEL CHAND JAIN R/O
NARSINGH BUILDING RANITAL, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SURESH CHAND JAIN S/O NOT MENTION
MAHATAMA GANDHI ROAD RAIPUR
(CHHATTISGARH)
8. VIPIN JAIN S/O NOT MENTION NEAR VINEET
TALKIES JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN S/O NOT MENTION
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. DILIP JAIN S/O LATE NIRMAL CHAND JAIN
MADHAV NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
11. LALIT JAIN S/O LATE NIRMAL CHAND JAIN
FREEGANJ MADHAV NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA
Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.03.04 17:07:35 IST
PRADESH)
2
12. DILIP JAIN S/O LATE DASRATH LAL JAIN R/O
BAZAR CHOWK LAKHNADON DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
13. PINTU S/O LATE SANTOSH JAIN , AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, R/O BAZAR CHOWK LAKHNADON
DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. CHHOTU S/O LATE SANTOSH JAIN , AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, R/O BAZAR CHOWK LAKHNADON
DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH).
15. SHAILU S/O LATE SANTOSH JAIN , AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, R/O BAZAR CHOWK LAKHNADON
DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
16. VIKKY S/O SANTOSH JAIN R/O BAZAR CHOWK
L A K H N A D O N DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
17. VIJAY JAIN S/O LATE PREM JAIN INFRONT OF LAL
SCHOOL GARHA FATAK (MADHYA PRADESH)
18. AJAY JAIN S/O LATE PREM JAIN R/O INFRONT OF
LAL SCHOOL GARHA FATAK JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
19. BOSE JAIN S/O LATE PREM JAIN R/O INFRONT OF
LAL SCHOOL GARHA FATAK,JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
20. USHA JAIN S/O LATE SANTOSH JAIN R/O PATPURA
M O H A L L A L A K H N A D O N DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
21. ARVIND JAIN S/O LATE PREM JAIN R/O PATPURA
M O H A L L A L A K H N A D O N DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
22. ANUP JAIN S/O LATE PREM JAIN R/O PATPURA
M O H A L L A L A K H N A D O N DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
23. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NO ONE IS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS)
T h is appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) r/w Section 104 Code of Civil
Signature Not Verified
Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated
SAN
Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.03.04 17:07:35 IST 17.12.2019 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Lakhnadon District Seoni
in Regular Civil Appeal No.30-A/2014, whereby reversing the judgment and decree
dated 30.8.2014 passed by the Additional Judge, to the Court of Civil Judge Class-
I, Lakhnadon in Civil Suit No.395-A/2013 and matter has been remanded back to
the trial Court for decision afresh.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since no stay was
granted in the present Misc. Appeal in favour of the appellant, therefore, in
pursuance to the judgment of remand dated 17.12.2019, learned Second Civil
Judge Senior Division, Lakhnadon started the proceeding in Regular Civil Suit
No.395-A/2013 and passed final judgment on 28.12.2021.
3. However, during the course of argument learned counsel for the
appellant fairly conceded and submits that there is no irregularity or illegality in the
impugned judgment of remand dated 17.12.2019.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and taking into
consideration the judgment and decree of remand, it is clear that the suit was
decreed even in absence of necessary parties and learned lower appellate Court
had rightly remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding the Civil Suit afresh
after implement of necessary parties, framing of issues and affording due
opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The impugned judgment of remand
being in accordance with law, do not require any interference by this Court.
Hence, this Misc. Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
kkc
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.03.04 17:07:35 IST
