Dr. Rajeev Goyal @ Raju vs Smt. Padmadevi Goyal
2022 Latest Caselaw 9758 MP

                             1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                           BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                      ON THE 15th OF JULY, 2022

                 MISC. PETITION No. 4234 of 2021

     Between:-
     DR. RAJEEV GOYAL @ RAJU S/O LATE SHRI
     RAMESH CHANDRA , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
     NEHRU    PARK  BEHIND  PETROL PUMP
     SHIKSHANAGAR ROAD MORENA (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

                                                   .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SAXENA-ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   SMT. PADMADEVI GOYAL W/O LATE SHRI
     RAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 85
     YEARS, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   DEAD PRAVEEN CHANDRA GOYAL THR. LRS
     2A) SMT. RADHADEVI W/O LATE SHRI PRAVEEN
     GOYAL , AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NEAR OF DR.
     HARILAL OLD HOUSING BOARD COLONY
     MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    2(B) KUSH GOYAL S/O LATE SHRI PRAVEEN
     GOYAL , AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NEAR OF DR.
     HARILAL OLD HOUSING BOARD COLONY
     MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    2(C) LOVE GOYAL S/O LATE SHRI PRAVEEN
     GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NEAR OF DR.
     HARILAL OLD HOUSING BOARD COLONY
     MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.   RENU BANSAL S/O RAVIKANT BANSAL, AGED
     ABOUT 63 YEARS, NEAR MAHAHAJI PARK
     BESIDES SUYASH HOSPITAL LASHKAR TEHSIL
     AND DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.   RAGHVENDRA SINGH DHAKRE S/O GAJRAJ
     SINGH DHAKRE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     NAINAGARD ROAD PURANI HOUSING BOARD
     COLOY TEHSIL AND DISTRICT   MORENA
                                     2
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.      SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA S/O KAILASH
        CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SAROJ
        TOWER LAT NO 307 IN FRONT OF MORENA
        TAUKIJ TEHSIL AND DISTRICT MORENA
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI YOGESH SINGHAL-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
        NO. 1, 3, 4 & 5 AND SHRI SANTOSH AGRAWAL-ADVOCATE FOR
        THE RESPONDENT NO.7)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by Second District Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No.142/2016.

In brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit against his mother Padmadevi Goyal, brother Praveen Chandra Goyal and sister Renu Bansal for declaration and permanent injunction. During the period of pendency of the suit, respondent Praveen Chandra Goyal died. His L.Rs. were substituted in his place. Respondents/defendants submitted their written statement and on the basis of pleadings issues were framed. Both the parties adduced their evidence and case is fixed for final argument. On 8.10.2021 petitioner/plaintiff submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking permission to add Shweta Goyal, daughter-in-law of defendant No. 1 Padmadevi on the basis that Padmadevi has executed a Will in her favour, which was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that on the basis of Will dated 22.07.2017 case in hand is not going to be decided. Besides this, it appears that Padmadevi is alive and if Padmadevi will die during the pendency of the suit, her heirs will come on record and will be substituted in

her place, then further complication will be created. In this situation, trial Court has committed error by dismissing his application.

On the contrary, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that there is no connection of Will dated 22.02.2017 in the present case and during the life time of Padmadevi Will has no value. Besides this, case is at final argument stage and after hearing the arguments judgment is to be pronounced,hence the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

On going through the application filed by the petitioner, it appears that Shweta Goyal is not a necessary party at this stage. Hence, by dismissing the application, the trial Court has not committed any mistake.

So far as another application filed by the petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 for making additional issues which was partly allowed by the Court below, grievance of the petitioner is that trial Court has not framed issues regarding Will executed by defendant in favour of Shweta Goyal. Looking to the fate of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, making of issue on this point is meaningless, hence trial Court by non making issues regarding Will executed in favour of Shweta Goyal has not committed any mistake in dismissing the application.

Consequently, the petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE

VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2022.07.15 17:15:44 +05'30'