Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9827 MP
Judgement Date : 18 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 18th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 1649 of 2022
Between:-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA S/O LATE SIYA
MESHRAM SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
BARA, POST RUPAULI TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMILESH CHATURVEDI- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJESH PRASAD MISHRA S/O KOUSHAL
PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
BARA POST RUPAULI TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT MEENA KUMARI @ MEENA DEVI D/O
LATE PREMNATH SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSE-WIFE R/O
VILLAGE BARA POST RUPAULI TAHSIL HUZUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR REWA
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and also on I.A. No. 4623/2022, application for grant of stay.
In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure-P/3) passed in Case No. 4-A/2012 by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, District Rewa whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.
The brief facts leading to filing of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain lands bearing Arazi No. 285/1 area 0.077 Hect, 306/1 area 0.004 Hect, Arazi No. 452/1 area 0.109 Hect, Arazi No. 452/4 area 0.036 Hect, Arazi No. 464/1 area 0.049 Hect, 473/1 area 0.129 Hect, 473/4 area 0.049 Hect, Arazi No. 479/2 area 0.243 Hect situated at Village Bara General No. 397
Patwari Halka Choura, Circle Bankuiya District Rewa M.P. in the year 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on 08.04.2019 by which the petitioner wanted to file copies of Khasra entries for the year 1993-94 and 1997-98. Learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not explain as to why he could not file the documents when the plaint was filed in the year 2013. The matter is pending since last 9 years and at the time of finalizing of the case, this application has been filed.
Admittedly, the petitioner in the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. has not assigned any reason as to why these documents could not be filed for quite a long time. The discretion to deal with the prayer has been exercised by the trial Court on the sound principles of law.
Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can not be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the order is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of
fundamental principles of law and justice. In the instant case, the impugned order has been rightly passed warranting no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [See: Jai Singh and others vs. M.C.D. and others (2010) 9 SCC 385 and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329].
In view of the preceding analysis, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2022.07.19 17:34:52 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!