Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rampuri Bai vs Kailashnarayan Dhakad on 22 March, 2022
Author: Sunita Yadav
-( 1 )- M.P. No. 4486/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 4486 of 2021
Between:-
SMT. RAMPURI BAI S/O BRIJBHAN
SINGH , AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
GRAM MUHALPUR TEH GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TEJ SINGH MAHADIK,
ADVOCATE)
VS
1. KAILASHNARAYAN DHAKAD S/O
SANMAN SINGH DHAKAD , AGED ABOUT
77 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST GRAM MUHALPUR
TEH GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT GULABBAI W/O KAILASH
NARAYAN DHAKAD , AGED ABOUT 72
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER
GRAM MUHALPUR, TEHSIL AND DIST.
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. BABLESH DHAKAD W/O LATE
SHRI KRISHNAVEER SINGH DHAKAD ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOMEMAKER GRAM MUHALPUR,
TEHSIL AND DIST. GUNA (MADHYA
-( 2 )- M.P. No. 4486/2021
PRADESH)
4. KU. OMLIKA DHAKAD D/O LATE
SHRI KRISHNAVEER SINGH DHAKAD ,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT GRAM MUHALPUR, TEHSIL
AND DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MR. SHIVANK DHAKD S/O LATE SHRI
KRISHNAVEER SINGH DHAKAD , AGED
ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT GRAM MUHALPUR, TEHSIL
AND DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHRI NARAYAN S/O SHRI KALUA, ,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMING GRAM MUHALPUR, TEHSIL
AND DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHRI GIRDHARI S/O SHRI KALUA, ,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMING GRAM MUHALPUR, TEHSIL
AND DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SHRI KAMALA S/O SHRI KALUA ,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMING GRAM MUHALPUR, TEHSIL
AND DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SMT. DHANIYA W/O SHRI KALUA ,
AGED ABOUT 97 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMING GRAM MUHALPUR, TEHSIL
AND DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. SMT. NATHIYABAI D/O SHRI KALUA ,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
-( 3 )- M.P. No. 4486/2021
FARMING GRAM MUHALPUR, TEHSIL
AND DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SHRI KRISHNAVEER SINGH DHAKAD
S/O NA. , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMING GRAM
MUHALPUR, TEHSIL AND DIST. GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
12. THE STATE OF MP THR. COLLECTOR
DIST. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAMADHAR CHOBEY, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 12-STATE.)
Reserved on : 08.03.2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting :
ORDER
(Passed on 22.03.2022)
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2021 passed in
Civil Suit No.36-A/2014 by VII, Additional District Judge, Guna.
2. Brief facts for disposal of the case are that a civil suit for
specific performance of agreement to sale was filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff on 02.08.2010. The respondents/defendants
filed a counter claim along with their written statement on
-( 4 )- M.P. No. 4486/2021
02.03.2012. On 28.03.2012, learned trial Court framed issues and
the case was fixed for evidence. The plaintiff was given
opportunity to examine her witnesses from 2004-2019 and on
10.07.2019 her right to lead evidence was closed. Thereafter,
petitioner's application for restoring the right to lead evidence was
allowed on 22.03.2021 but she failed to lead evidence. By order
impugned, learned trial Court has closed the right of the
petitioner/plaintiff to lead the evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
impugned order is against the settled principle of law. The trial
Court has erred in not allowing the petitioner/plaintiff to lead her
evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits
that order impugned is appropriate and in accordance with law and
does not need to be interfered with.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the plaint was
filed on 05.08.2010 and from 03.04.2012 to 10.07.2019, the
petitioner/plaintiff was given opportunities to examine her
witnesses but she failed to lead the evidence. On 10.07.2019 i.e.
after about 5 years, right of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead the
-( 5 )- M.P. No. 4486/2021
evidence was closed. On 12.02.2020, one counsel for the plaintiff
appeared and filed an application under Order 151 of CPC which
was allowed and the learned trial Court granted further
opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead her evidence.
However, she again failed and did not examine her witnesses till
the date of passing of order impugned.
7. In view of the facts as described above, it is apparent that
learned trial Court has given ample opportunities to the
petitioner/plaintiff to produce her evidence. However, she
remained negligent and irresponsible. In view of the factum that
suit was filed on 05.10.2010 and the petitioner/plaintiff had
availed ample opportunities to lead her evidence in 10 years but
she utterly failed to produce her evidence, the impugned order
does not suffer with perversity or illegality.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Kewal Krishan
Vs. Harnek, Singh (Dead) by Lrs. reported in 2001 (9) SCC
117, Kamal Kumar Modi & another Vs. Krishan Saigal
reported in ILR (2003) I Delhi 23, Ramesh Chandra and
others Vs. Rameshwardayal reported in AIR 1987 MP 110 and
State of Maharashtra Vs. Maimuna Begam reported in AIR
1994 Bombay 353 and prayed to give an opportunity to produce
-( 6 )- M.P. No. 4486/2021
evidence.
9. The facts and circumstances of the cases cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner being different, from this case do
not support the petitioner.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find
any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
11. Consequently, present miscellaneous petition is dismissed
being devoid of merits.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
bj/-
BARKHA
SHARMA
2022.03.2
2 14:42:57
+05'30'
