Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rukko Bai vs Bhamra @ Bhawarlal (Dead) Thr. ... on 5 May, 2022
Author: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 2423 of 2019
Between:-
1. SMT. RUKKO BAI W/O LATE BARELAL , AGED
ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE TARABALI TAH. GAIRATGANJ (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. GAYAPRASAD S/O LATE BARELAL , AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE HARIJAN R/O
VILLAGE TARABALI, TAHSIL GAIRATGANJ
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. GANGAPRASAD S/O LATE BARELAL , AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE HARIJAN
R/O VILLAGE TARABALI, TAHSIL GAIRATGANJ
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SOURABH SINGH THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BHAMRA @ BHAWARLAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. SMT.
KERABAI W/O LATE BHAWARLAL , AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS, R/O BEHIND OF RESMARU HOTEL
ADAMPUR CHAONI PATHAR POST ADAMPUR TAH.
AND DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. RAMKUWARBAI W/O RAVI D/O LATE
BHAWARLAL , AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, AT
PRESENT R/O VILLAGE BAMANKHEDA, TAHSIL
AND DISTT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. VIMLA BAI W/O RAMDAYAL AHIRWAR ,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: D/O LATE
BHAWARLAL CASTE AHIRWAR R/O GUDABAL
POST TAHSIL GUDABAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. UMEDI BAI W/O GUDDA AHIRWAR , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: D/O LATE
BHAWARLAL CASTE AHIRWAR R/O BEHIND OF
RESMARU HOTEL ADAMPUR CHAONI PATHAR
P O S T ADAMPUR TAH. AND DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. VIRENDRA AHIRWAR S/O LATE BHAWARLAL ,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE
AHIRWAR R/O BEHIND OF RESMARU HOTEL
ADAMPUR CHAONI PATHAR POST ADAMPUR TAH.
AND DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
6. MANSARAM AHIRWAR S/O LATE BHAWARLAL ,
Digitally signed by
MONSI M SIMON AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE
Date: 2022.05.07 AHIRWAR R/O BEHIND OF RESMARU HOTEL
10:53:15 IST
2
ADAMPUR CHAONI PATHAR POST ADAMPUR TAH.
AND DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SAMPATBAI W/O LATE OMKAR , AGED ABOUT 60
YEAR S , R/O TARABALI, TAHSIL GAIRATGANJ
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. BHEEKAM SINGH S/O LATE OMKAR , AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE AHIRWAR
R/O TARABALI, TAHSIL GAIRATGANJ (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. URMILA D/O LATE OMKAR W/O UDAYBHAN
CASTE HARIJAN R/O RAHUL NAGAR, MANDIDEEP
TAHSIL GOHARGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. PREETI D/O LATE OMKAR W/O SHIVRAJ CASTE
HAR I J AN R/O VILLAGE BOHARIYA KAREIYA
TAHSIL AND DISTT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. COLLECTOR
COMPOSITE OFFICE SANCHI ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R. B. PATEL, ADVOCATE )
This petition has come up for hearing on this day and the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
challenging order dated 9.4.2019 contained in Annexure P/6. First Civil Judge,
Class-I, Gairatganj, District Raisen has dismissed the application of petitioners for
appointment of next friend.
Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is a deaf
person and he suffers from 50% disability, therefore, trial court has committed an
error in dismissing her application for appointment of next friend. It is submitted
that petitioner/plaintiff falls within the category of persons defined under Order 32
Rule 15 CPC. He has relied on judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Alka w/o Akash Jain vs. Akash s/o Krishan Kumar Jain, 2010
(2) MPLJ 72. In view of aforesaid learned counsel for petitioners prayed for
setting aside impugned order rejecting the prayer of petitioners to keep next
friend/guardian in the case.
Signature
SAN Not Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer made by
Verified
Digitally signed by petitioners/plaintiff. It is submitted that written statement and other documents has
MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2022.05.07
10:53:15 IST
been filed, even affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC of plaintiff has been filed.
Application filed by petitioners for appointing next friend is not maintainable as
petitioner no.1 is not mentally infirm and she does not fall in category of person
which has been defined under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners filed their plaint in individual capacity. Petitioner no.1 is capable
to understand and respond to situations. Petitioner had already filed her affidavit
and document. In these circumstances, trial court has not committed any error in
holding that petitioners does not fall in category of persons defined under Order 32
Rule 15 of CPC and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.
Resultantly, Misc. Petition filed by petitioners is dismissed with liberty to
petitioners to file application under Section 119 of Evidence Act for recording of
evidence of petitioner no.1 before the trial court, if there is requirement for same.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
mms
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2022.05.07
10:53:15 IST
