Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12488 MP
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 968 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1. JAGANNATH SON OF GOME TELI, AGED ABOUT
65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AND POST BAMHNI,
TAHSIL KATANGI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THROUGH L.RS.
1.1. UJAYLAL S/O LATE JAGANNATH, AGED ABOUT
29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAMHANI POST
BAMHANI TAHSIL KATANGI, DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
1.2. SHOBHARAM S/O LATE JAGANNATH, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAMHANI
POST BAMHANI TAHSIL KATANGI, DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
1.3. MARUTI S/O JAGGANNATH, AGED ABOUT 14
YEAR S, VILLAGE BAMHANI POST BAMHANI
TAHSIL KATANGI (MADHYA PRADESH)
1.4. TARA BAI W/O HEMRAJ, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE JAGANNATH R/O
VILLAGE NAWAGAON, POST TUMSAR, TAHSIL
KATANGI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
1.5. TANO BAI W/O JAGANNATH, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, WIDOW OF LATE JAGANNATH, R/O
VILLAGE BAMHANI POST BAMHANI TAHSIL
KATANGI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE PRESENT)
Signature Not Verified
AND
SAN
1. MOHAN LAL S/O DASHRATH TELI, AGE ABOUT
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2022.09.20 10:21:33 IST 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO
BAMHNI, REVENUE SUB DIVISION, KATANGI,
2
TAHSIL WARASEONI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NOKHELAL S/O MOHANLAL TELI, AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
BAMHANI, REVENUE SUB DIVISION, KATANGI,
TAHSIL WARASEONI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHYAMLAL S/O MOHANLAL TELI, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST BAMHANI,
REVENUE SUB DIVISION, KATANGI, TAHSIL
WARASEONI, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE PRESENT)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-Jagannath (now dead), at present through his legal heirs, under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC' for short), being aggrieved of the judgment dated 18.01.2001, passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat (M.P.), in Civil Appeal No.28- A/1999, arising out of judgment and decree dated 17.09.1999, in Civil Suit No.325-A/1996, passed by learned II Civil Judge, Class-II, Waraseoni, remanding the matter to the trial Court under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC, after recording a finding that once Ex.P/1, Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2 were sought to be declared as illegal and defendants had denied this fact, then issues should have been framed about the validity and acceptance of these documents and, thereafter, suit should have been decided.
2. I find that learned II Addl. District Judge Waraseoni has framed the proper Signature Not Verified SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.09.20 10:21:33 IST issue on which it had directed the trial Court to take evidence. There is no
illegality in the impugned judgment and decree calling for any interference.
3. Appeal fails and is dismissed.
4. Let record of the Courts below be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.09.20 10:21:33 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!