Rashi Jain vs Mamta Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 15513 MP

                                                  W.P. No.5756/2016
                               1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                             BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                 ON THE 24th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
             WRIT PETITION No. 5756 of 2016
        BETWEEN:-
        RASHI JAIN D/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR
        JAIN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O 1025,
        DIXITPURA MOTILAL NEHRU WARD
        JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                 .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR JAIN- ADVOCATE )
        AND
1.      MAMTA BAI W/O MAHENDRA SINGH
        PATEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O
        KANTORA TEHSIL PATAN, DISTRICT
        JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.      PRITI BAI W/O GOVID PRASAD, AGED
        ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE
        R/O IMLIYA, TEH. GOTEGAWAN,
        DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)



3.      KIRTI BAI PATEL W/O BALLI PATEL,
        AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        NONE R/O ORIYA, TEH. AND DIST.
        JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



4.      BHARTI PATEL D/O RAJARAM PATEL,
        AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        NONE R/O KANTORA, TEH. PATAN,
        DISTRICT   JABALPUR     (MADHYA
                                                       W.P. No.5756/2016
                                  2


       PRADESH)



5.     AARTI PATEL D/O RAJARAM PATEL,
       AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
       NONE, R/O KANTORA, TEH. PATAN,
       DISTRICT   JABALPUR     (MADHYA
       PRADESH)



6.     JYOTI D/O RAJARAM PATEL, AGED
       ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE
       R/O KANTORA, TEH. PATAN, DISTRICT
       JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



7.     STATE OF M.P., THR. COLLECTOR,
       JABALPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
       JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                  .....RESPONDENTS

       (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS EVEN THOUGH SERVED )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

                               ORDER

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.12.2015 passed in Civil

Suit No.391A/2015 in Lok Adalat by Additional Judge to the Court of

Civil Judge, Class II, Patan District Jabalpur, whereby the suit has

been decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties and W.P. No.5756/2016

accordingly, the decree has been drawn. The grievance of the

petitioner is that she is the registered owner of Khasra No.52/1.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 to 6 are

daughters of Rajaram and Rameti Bai. Originally Khasra No.52 and

139/3 situated at village Kantora belonging family of Rajaram was

partitioned vide partition deed dated 28.04.1998 part Khasra No.52

area 1.96 hectares and the same was allotted to Rameti Bai, which

was registered as Khasra No.52/1. Thereafter, Rameti Bai by way of

registered sale deed dated 31.03.2012 sold 1.20 hectares of land

situated in Khasra No.52/1 to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this fact was

in the knowledge of the plaintiff since one suit was filed, wherein the

present petitioner was arrayed as defendant No.1. He further

submitted that by playing fraud and not impleading the petitioner as

defendant in the present suit, compromise decree has been passed

within one month of institution of suit as the suit was filed on

20.11.2015, whereas the suit has been decreed on 12.12.2015.

Thereafter, being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a review petition

before the trial Court, which was registered as Review No.1/2016

(Annexure P/13), which was also dismissed as not maintainable since

the order was passed in Lok Adalat and in such a situation, only writ W.P. No.5756/2016

petition is maintainable in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court

in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh and

others as reported in AIR 2008 SC 1209. In view of the aforesaid,

the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2015 deserves to be set aside.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. On perusal of Annexure P/2, which is a registered sale deed

dated 31.03.2012, it can be seen that the same has been entered

between the parties, wherein the petitioner is the purchaser of the

property bearing Khasra No.52/1. Admittedly, the petitioner was not

arrayed as defendant in the present suit; therefore, compromise could

not have been arrived at between the parties. On this ground alone,

the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.12.2015 is hereby set

aside. The plaintiff therein would be free to prosecute the suit in

accordance with law, if so advised.

The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated

hereinabove.

No order as to costs.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.11.24 15:42:43 +05'30'