Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu Goyal vs Radhadevi on 9 August, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 4471 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VISHNU GOYAL S/O SHRI GHISALAL JI GOYAL, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS AND
AGRICULTURE R/O 81, JANKI NAGAR (MAIN) INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KUNAL JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RADHADEVI W/O BANWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 72
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILLAGE
KHAJRANA, TEHSIL AND DISTT. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KU. POONAM D/O BANWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 52
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILLAGE
KHAJRANA DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KU. KAVITA D/O BANWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 50
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILLAGE
KHAJRANA, TEHSIL AND DIST. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAJESH S/O BANWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 48
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILLAGE
KHAJRANA, TEH. AND DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. NEELESH W/O BANWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 46
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILLAGE
KHAJRANA, TEH. AND DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. KU. RITU D/O BANWARILAL, AGED ABOUT 41
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILLAGE
KHAJRANA TEHSIL AND DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 10-08-2023
17:14:05
2
7. DAMODAR S/O LT. LXMANJI, AGED ABOUT 60
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SHYAMKUMAR S/O LT. LXMANJI, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
KHATIMOHALL MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. GANGABAI W/O VISHNU PATEL OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE KHUMARIA, DIST. DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. SUNITA W/O BHAGIRATH KHATI OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE PALASIA, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. REENA W/O DILIP KHATI OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE PATLAWDA, DISTT. DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
12. MANORAMA W/O SUNIL KHATI OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE JAGMAL PIPLIYA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
13. HEMABAI W/O ASHISH CHOUDHARY
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE MIRJAPUR,
DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. KAMLABAI W/O RAMESHWARAM OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE KHATIMOHALL, MUSAKHEDI,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. COLLECTOR
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
being aggrieved by the order dated 12/4/2023 and Review order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 10-08-2023
17:14:05
18/7/2023.
2. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 in Civil Suit
No.A-05/2016 pending before XXIX District Judge, Indore. A suit for specific
performance has been filed by the respondent Nos.1-6 against the respondent
Nos.7-14. The petitioner claims that the defendants in the said suit has also
executed agreement with the present petitioner which is prior in time to the
agreement executed between those parties. The petitioner has also filed a civil
suit for specific performance and the said suit has been transferred to the same
Court and while dismissing the Review application the Court has observed that
all the suits relating to the same agreement are being heard simultaneously. This
Court also while deciding and disposing off the Civil Revision No.736/2022
filed by the petitioner has observed that both the suits i.e Civil Suit No.59-
A/2016 and Civil Suit No.53-A/2016 shall be transferred to the same Court and
the said Court shall pass order in both the cases on the same day.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a proper party
being one of the party to an agreement executed by the same defendants. In
support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the
Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10940-10941/2014 (Baluram Vs. P.
Chellathangam & Ors.).
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioner has also filed a suit for specific
performance against the same defendants. The said suit has also been
transferred to the same Court and they are being heard simultaneously. Under
these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held to be proper party and the
judgment relied by the petitioner passed by the Apex Court would not apply in
the facts of the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 10-08-2023
17:14:05
5. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
order warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Even otherwise, it is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of subordinate
Courts within its limitation. It can be exercised where the order is passed in
grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of the fundamental principle of law
and justice. [See. Jai Singh and another vs. MCD, (2010) 9 SCC 385 and
Shalini Shetty vs. Rajendra S. Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329].
7. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh
Dubey and another vs. Tilak Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,
Bhopal and another, 2004 (2) MPHT 14 held that supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the
subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate
Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to
exercise jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction through available is
being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of
justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to
exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of
law unless the following requirements are satisfied - (i) the error is manifest and
apparent on the fact of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear
ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law; and (ii) a grave injustice or
gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the instant petition is
devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The order impugned in the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 10-08-2023
17:14:05
petition passed by the Court below is upheld.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Pramod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 10-08-2023
17:14:05
