Ramsewak vs Anguri Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 4395 MP

                                 1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                 BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                        ON THE 29th OF MARCH, 2022

                    MISC. PETITION No. 6629 of 2019

        Between:-
1.      RAMSEWAK S/O SHRI RAMSHANKAR SHARMA ,
        AGED    ABOUT   62   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        AGRICULTURIST  VILLAGE  BADFARA TEH.
        AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      RAMVARAN S/O RAMSHANKAR SHARMA , AGED
        ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGIRCULTURE
        VILL BADFARA TEH AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      RAJKISHOR S/O RAMSHANKAR SHARMA , AGED
        ABOUT 58 YEARS, VILL BADFARA TEH AMBAH
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.      RAMNARESH S/O RAMSHANKAR SHARMA , AGED
        ABOUT 54 YEARS, VILL BADFARA TEH AMBAH
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....PETITIONERS
        (BY SHRI MAHESH GOYAL, ADVOCATE)

        AND

1.      ANGURI    DEVI   W/O   NATTHILAL VILLAGE
        BADFARA, TEH. AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      RAMKUMAR S/O NATTHILAL VILL BADFARA TEH
        AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      BRIJESH S/O NATTHILAL VILL BADFARA TEH
        AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.      HARI BABU S/O VIDHYARAM VILL BADFARA TEH
        AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.      HARIMOHAN S/O TUNDARAM VILL BADFARA TEH
        AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
        (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS- THOUGH SERVED. )

      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

Present petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 18/10/2019 passed by Additional Collector, District Morena in case No. 0007/2018- 19/Revision, reversing the order dated 15/1/2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Ambah, District Morena, whereby an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the petitioners was allowed and documents were taken on record as additional evidence.

Brief facts to decide the present petition are that on 12/8/2013, petitioners

herein filed an application under Section 109, 110 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar, Ambah, District Morena which was registered as case No. 63/2012-13/A-6. It was submitted in the application that 1/3rd portion of the land mentioned in para 1 of the application belongs to Murari Lal S/o Dwarka Prasad. Murari Lal had expired on 20/9/1965 without having any child. The petitioners being legal heirs of deceased Murari Lal claimed themselves as the owner of the land of their share. The petitioners prayed to get the mutation done in their favour. The respondents herein raised objections before the Tehsildar, Ambah, District Morena. The Tehsildar vide its order dated 26/5/2018 allowed the objections raised by Haribabu and Harimohan. The order of Tehsildar was challenged by the petitioners before Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambah, District Morena, which was registered as Case No. 0113/2017-18/Appeal. During the pendency of appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambah, petitioners herein moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking certain documents on record as additional evidence, which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 15/1/2019. The respondents challenged the order dated 15/1/2019 by filing the revision before the Additional Collector, Morena, which was allowed by order impugned.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order impugned is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. Additional Collector, Morena has rejected the application mainly on the ground that the reasons for taking additional documents on record are not mentioned in the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambah, District Morena, whereas the S.D.O. has specifically mentioned the reasons for allowing the application.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the available record. On perusal of the order dated 15/1/2019 of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambah, District Morena passed in Case No. 0113/2017-18/Appeal, it reveals that the S.D.O. categorically assigned the reason for allowing the application under Order

41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the petitioners herein in the light of the judgment passed in the case of "Ranjeet narayan Haskar vs. Laxmanbai Jethabai, [2005 (2) Vidhi Bhaswar 38]. Therefore, the order impugned in which it has been opined by the Additional Collector that the order of the S.D.O. had been passed without assigning any reason is contrary to the facts available on record. Moreover, in the case of Genda Rani and Anr. vs. Jai Kunwar, [1994 RN 155], it is held that nature of the proceedings before the Revenue Courts in respect to the mutation are of summary in nature and in the cases which are decided summarily, the provisions of CPC are not applied strictly. So also, the documents

filed by the petitioners herein are certified copies of public documents.

In view of the above discussion, the above documents are found to be relevant to decide the dispute between the parties.

Consequently, present petition is allowed. The order impugned is found to be contrary to the settled principles of law and, therefore, the same is hereby set aside.

ALOK KUMAR
2022.03.30
16:56:56
+05'30'                                                                      (SUNITA YADAV)
11.0.23
                                                                                 JUDGE
             AKS