Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S J N Real Estate vs Shailendra Pradhan on 12 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 718 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M/S J N REAL ESTATE THROUGH PARTNER JAIMOHAN
S/O B L AGRAWAL R/O 14 SARAFA CHOWK BHOPAL
(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PANCHOLI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHAILENDRA PRADHAN S/O LATE P D PRADHAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF
EMPLOYED R/O 39 ANSAL PRADHAN ENCLAVE E 8
ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (M.P) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. AKSHAT PRADHAN S/O LATE INDRAMOHAN
PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O 23
TARDPORD ROAD LINKON AMERICA (OTHER)
3. ANANT PRADHAN S/O LATE INDRAMOHAN
PRADHAN 90 LITTLE D.R. PROVIDENCE R.R. O
USA (OTHER)
4. SAMEER GHOSH S/O S.K. GHOSH R/O A-201
AISHBAGH BHOPAL PRESENTLY R/O 244
MAHABALI NAGAR KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE)
REVIEW PETITION No. 714 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M/S J.M. REAL ESTATE THROUGH PARTNER
JAIMOHAN S/O B.L. AGRAWAL AGE ADULT R/O 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 14-12-2023
11:57:51
2
SARAFA CHOWK BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PANCHOLI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHAILENDRA PRADHAN S/O LATE P.D. PRADHAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF
EMPLOYED R/O SHIV MANDIR AHMADPUR KALA
HOSHNGABAD ROAD BHOPAL PRSENTLY R/O 39
ANSAL PRADHAN ENCLAVE E-8 ARERA COLONY
BHOPALBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AKSHAT PRADHAN S/O LATE INDRAMOHAN
PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O 23
TARDPORD ROAD LINKON MA-1773 AMERICA
(OTHER)
3. ANANT PRADHAN S/O LATE INDRAMOHAN
PRADHAN OCCUPATION: THROUGH POWER OF
ATTONEY HOLDER AJAY MISHRA S/O SHRI MD
MISHRA AMERICA (OTHER)
4. AJAY MISHRA S/O SHRI SHRI MD MISHRA R/O E-
5/66 ARERA COLONY (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SAMEER GHOSH S/O S.K. GHOSH R/O A-201
AISHBAGH BHOPAL PRESENTLY R/O 244
MAHABALI NAGAR KOLAR ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
C O L L E C T O R OLD SECRETARIAT DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. TEHSILDAR M.P. NAGAR CIRCLE NEAR 7 NO. BUS
STOP BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE)
REVIEW PETITION No. 717 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M/S J N REAL ESTALE THROUGH PARTNER JAIMOHAN
S/O B L AGRAWAL R/O 14 SARAFA CHOWK BHOPAL
(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 14-12-2023
11:57:51
3
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PANCHOLI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHAILENDRA PRADHAN S/O LATE P D PRADHAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF
EMPLOYED R/O 39 ANSAL PRADHAN ENCLAVE E 8
ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (M.P) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ADARSH MALHOTRA S/O LATE S.K. MALHOTRA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O E-4/6, ARERA
COLONY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AKSHAT PRADHAN S/O LATE INDRAMOHAN
PR AD HAN R/O 1357, NORTH SCENDREYADU,
PUPALO WEST, KALA ROAD, AMERICA (OTHER
COUNTRY)
4. ANANT PRADHAN S/O LATE INDRAMOHAN
PR AD HAN R/O 1357, NORTH SCENDREYADU,
PUPALO WEST, KALA ROAD, AMERICA (OTHER
COUNTRY)
5. SAMEER GHOSH S/O S.K. GHOSH R/O A-201,
AISHBAGH, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
C O L L E C T O R OLD SECRETARIAT, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SUMAN ALIAS RAJKUMARI W/O AKHILESH
P A T E L R/O PLOT NO.16, NEAR VICTORIA
COLLEGE, HINOTIYA ALAM, KOLAR ROAD,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. ASHOK KUMAR NAVERIA S/O SHRI NANDI
NAVERIA R/O 60/3, SOUTH T.T. NAGAR BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
These review petitions have been filed being aggrieved by a party who
was defendant No.8 of MP No.5567 of 2018 on the ground that this Court
committed an error on face of record in setting aside the orders of the trial
Court entertaining an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. It is
submitted that he is a purchaser lis pendens and therefore, he is a necessary
party to the lis.
Shri Zargar, in his turn, submits that the High Court vide order dated
01.08.2008 passed in WP No.8902/2008, where transferor Sameer Ghosh was a
party, at the instance of one of the parties - Shailendra Pradhan directed the
parties to maintain the status quo. Therefore, position of the transferee steps
into shoes of the transferor and that he has to follow the rights and liabilities of
the transferee. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Sunil Gupta v. Kiran Girhotra and Others, (2007) 8
SCC 506 wherein it is held that in probate proceedings, in transfer of property
concerned during probate proceedings, impleadment of said transferee to
probate proceeding, is not necessary.
Shri Pancholi vehemently submits that in WP No.5567/2018, in fact, the
petitioner Shaielndra Pradhan is a defendant. The suit is filed by another person
seeking specific performance of agreement. Therefore,the present applicant is a
necessary party.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, as far as MP No. 2166/2018 is concerned it is filed by one Shailendra
Pradhan who had filed an application under Section 263 of the Indian
Succession Act which was registered as MJC 66/2008 seeking a relief for
cancellation of probate issued in favour of the defendant No.1 Sameer Ghosh.
Thus, submission made by Shri Pancholi that this case has nothing to do with
probate and thus ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Sunil
Gupta (supra) has no application, is not made out. Since the suit is in regard to
cancellation of probate as was issued by the trial Court in favour of Sameer
Ghoash and admittedly the review petitioner claims that he purchased the
property in question from said Shri Sameer Ghosh, therefore, his rights and
liabilities will be governed by rights and liabilities of Sameer Gosh, as may be
decided from time to time. Thus, ratio laid down in case of Sunil Gupta
(supra) has application in full force and, therefore, the submission made by
Shri Pancholi is not acceptable. Thus, review petition No.718/2023 deserves to
and is dismissed.
As far as other two review petitions, namely, RP No.714/2023 and RP
No.717/2023 are concerned, in view of the aforesaid discussion, and as there is
no material brought on record to show error apparent on the face of the record,
no indulgence can be shown. Therefore, these review petitions also fail and are
dismissed.
VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ks
