Rammurti Verma vs Smt. Shashi Gandhi
2023 Latest Caselaw 6466 MP

                                                                      1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR

                                                                 BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                                                   ON THE 21st OF APRIL, 2023


                                                CIVIL REVISION No. 325 of 2022

                                  BETWEEN:-

                                  RAMMURTI VERMA S/O BADRIPRASAD
                                  VERMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O
                                  NAINAGARH    ROAD,    MAHESHWARI
                                  DHARAMSHALA KE SAMNE WALI GALI
                                  NO. 1, GANDHI KA BADA, MOERNA,
                                  TEHSIL   AND   DISTRICT  MORENA
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            ........PETITIONER
                                  (BY SHRI R.P. GUPTA - ADVOCATE )

                                  AND
                                  SMT. SHASHI GANDHI W/O LT. SHRIRAM
                                  GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O
                                  NAINAGARH     ROAD,    MAHESHWARI
                                  DHARAMSHALA KE SAMNE WALI GALI
                                  NO. 1, GANDHI KA BADA, MOERNA,
                                  TEHSIL   AND    DISTRICT    MORENA
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         ........RESPONDENTS
                                  (BY SHRI ASHISH SARASWAT- ADVOCATE
                                  FOR RESPONDENT/CAVEATOR)
                           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed
                           the following:
                           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 25-04-2023
10:15:52 AM
                                                                 2

                                                              ORDER

The present revision has been filed assailing the order dated 09/05/2022 passed in MCA No.43/2021 by 4 th District Judge, Morena, District Morena (M.P.) confirming the order dated 30/10/2021 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena in MJC No.12/2020, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w. Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

Facts in brief to decide the present revision are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit against the petitioner/defendant which was registered as civil suit no.76-A/2018 for eviction of the defendant before the learned Second Civil Judge, Morena. The above suit has been decree on 31/08/2019. The respondent/defendant preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC which dismissed on 30/10/2021 against that Misc. Civil Appeal No.43/2021 was preferred before the learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Morena and the same was also dismissed on 09/05/2022, against which this revision is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned orders are perverse, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, hence, the same deserves to be quashed /set aside. It is further argued that learned courts below have erred in dismissing the application in spite of the fact that there was sufficient reasons for petitioner/defendant of non-appearance. It is further argued that the counsel did not inform him about the date of hearing, so also, he was not keeping well and under treatment, therefore, he could not appear before the learned trial Court. When he received the execution notice, then only he came to know that the judgment and decree have been passed in civil suit no.76-A/2018. In these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 09/05/2022 and 30/10/2021 be set aside and the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC be allowed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 25-04-2023 10:15:52 AM

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the prayer made by petitioner and argued that the impugned orders passed by courts below are in accordance to law and need not be interfered with, therefore, the present revision deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

On perusal of record reveals that both the courts below have discussed the evidence adduced by the parties as well as documents filed on behalf of them. It is apparent that neither the concerned Doctor who treated the petitioner nor the counsel who allegedly did not inform the petitioner about the date have been examined as a witness. The affidavit of concerned counsel has also not been filed. In these circumstances, when there is no bona-fide satisfactory grounds for non-appearance of petitioner before the learned trial Court, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has applied correct principles of law and duly considered the relevant facts while it rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. As such, neither there is any illegality, nor any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court.

Consequently, the instant petition, being devoid of merits and substance, is hereby dismissed.

(SUNITA YADAV ) JUDGE

vpn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 25-04-2023 10:15:52 AM