Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mus. Gangi Devi vs Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Mishra ... on 6 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 6th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 3010 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. MUS. GANGI DEVI, W/O DADAI RAM, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE TENDUA TEH.
GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. NANDLAL MISHRA S/O LATE DADAI RAM,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHIVDAS MISHRA S/O LATE DADAI RAM, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MANMURTI PRASAD MISHRA S/O LATE DADAI
RAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAKESH KUMAR MISHRA S/O LATE DADAI
RAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTTTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA S/O LATE DADAI
RAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
7. NAVEEN KUMAR MISHRA S/O LATE DADAI
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.09.06 19:54:29 IST RAM, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
2
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAI SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 (a). BHUVANESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA (DEAD)
THR. LRS. MUS. SAROJ MISHRA WD/O
BHUVANESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TENDUA TEH.
GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(b). POOJA D/O LATE BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(c). ARTI MISHRA D/O LATE BHUVNESHWAR
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
TENDUA, TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(d). NEHA D/O LATE BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(e). RAMESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE
BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 17
YEARS, MINOR THR. LEGAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER MUS SAROJ MISHRA W/O LATE
BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE
TENDUA, TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BALMUKIND MISHRA S/O DADAN RAM
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
TENDUA, TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. HARIDAS MISHRA S/O DADAN RAM MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
PRADESH)
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH 4. MUNENDRA MISHRA S/O DADAN RAM
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
Date: 2022.09.06 19:54:29 IST
TENDUA, TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI
3
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MUS RAMKALI WD/O DADAN RAM MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TENDUA,
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRABHAKAR SINGH, ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing on this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code
of Civil Procedure being aggrieved of judgment dated 04/05/2019 passed by
learned 4th Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Appeal No.127A/2018
directing the trial Court to decide the suit afresh only on the basis of an
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which was allowed by first
appellate Court permitting the parties to bring on record copy of order passed
by SDO setting aside the order of the Tahsildar on the basis of which, suit was
decreed.
It is submitted that when order of SDO was brought on record, then first
appellate Court was required to decide the appeal on its own merits and without
framing any issue, it could not have remanded the matter for the sake of
remand.
Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is in agreement
that no issue was framed while remanding the matter. It is submitted that after
taking documents on record, first appellate Court could have decided the
appeal on its own merits.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Taking these facts into consideration, impugned order is quashed. It is
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.09.06 19:54:29 IST
directed that first appellate Court shall decide the appeal on its own merits after
taking into consideration the documents which have been brought on record
vide application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
Let appeal be decided within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of
the order being passed today.
In above terms, this miscellaneous appeal is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.09.06 19:54:29 IST
