Hukum Singh vs Saket Kumar Jain
2023 Latest Caselaw 21455 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hukum Singh vs Saket Kumar Jain on 14 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 14 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               MISC. PETITION No. 3428 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           HUKUM SINGH S/O TEK SINGH LODHI, AGED ABOUT 37
                           YEAR S , PADARIA THUA TEHSIL PATAN DISTRICT
                           JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)

                           AND
                           1.    SAKET KUMAR JAIN S/O SUBHASH KUMAR JAIN,
                                 AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WARD NO. 10 MAIN
                                 ROAD KATANGI TEHSIL PATAN DISTRICT
                                 JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH THE
                                 COLLECTOR,    JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR
                                 M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 14.07.2022, Anneuxre P-2, passed by learned 3rd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patan, District Jabalpur rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC for grant of adjournment.

I have perused the impugned order, it is mentioned in the impugned order that an application was filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 that since health of

the defendant No.1 is not proper, therefore, he is unable to give evidence and time was sought.

Trial Court recorded a fact that case was fixed for defendant evidence on 19.02.2020, 20.03.2020, 22.02.2021, 28.02.2021, 08.03.2021, 17.03.2021, 07.04.2021, 28.04.2021, 20.09.2021, 23.11.2021, 25.01.2022, 09.05.2022 and 21.06.2022 but evidence was not led. On the last date, subject to cost of Rs.500/- last opportunity was given to adduce evidence.

It has also recorded a fact that though defendant claim that he is not keeping good health but did not produce any medical certificate or documentation in support of this contention and, therefore, referring to the

judgment in case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu versus Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344, application under Order 17 Rule 1 has been rejected.

Perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order calling for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish