Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sugni @ Mugli vs Aatmaram on 10 February, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 10 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 754 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SUGNI @ MUGLI D/O BIRDAJI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE KATKOOT
TEHSIL BADWAH DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ASIF ANSARI-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. AATMARAM S/O KESHAJI, AGED ABOUT 65
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O KATKOOT
VILLAGE TEHISL BADWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KACHRA ALIAS KAMAL S/O KESHAJI, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O
KATKOOT VILLAGE TEHISL BADWAH DISTT.
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMGOPAL S/O VIRDAJI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE KATKOOT
TEHSIL BARWAH DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. HUKUM S/O BIRDAJI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE KATKOOT
TEHSIL BARWAH DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAMKISHAN S/O BIRDAJI, AGED ABOUT 53
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE
KATKOOT TEHSIL BARWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. GANGARAM JAT S/O BIRDAJI, AGED ABOUT 49
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE
KATKOOT TEHSIL BARWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 2/10/2023
6:42:34 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. MULIJI D/O DHANNA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE
KATKOOT TEHSIL BARWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. MOJIRAM S/O DHANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE KATKOOT
TEHSIL BARWAH DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. GEETABAI W/O RUGNAJI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE
KATKOOT TEHSIL BARWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. GULABBAI D/O DHANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE
KATKOOT TEHSIL BADWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SUSHILABAI S/O KESHAJI, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE NANDAKHEDI
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. KAILASH S/O KESHAJI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE KATKUT
TEHSIL BADWAH DISTRICT KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
13. RAMCHANDRA S/O KESHAJI, AGED ABOUT 51
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE
KATKUT TEHSIL BADWAH DISTRICT KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
14. SAPNA BAI D/O KESHAJI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE
MANDAKHEDI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
15. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
16. RUKMABAI W/O POONAMCHAND, AGED ABOUT
51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE KATKOOT TEHSIL BADWAH DISTT.
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 2/10/2023
6:42:34 PM
3
17. SHANKAR S/O PUBAJI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER RESIDENT LONG
ELDERLY LAMBI BUJURG TEHSIL BADWAH
DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
18. SHYAMU S/O RADHESHYAM, AGED ABOUT 37
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O VILLAGE
KATKOOT TEHSIL BADWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
19. MADHUBAI W/O ATMARAM, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE
KATKOOT TEHSIL BADWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
20. MANUBAI W/O MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE
KATKOOT TEHSIL BADWAH DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
21. DINESH S/O SUGAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
VILLAGE MANASA TEHSIL HATPIPLIYA DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MS. PRANJALI YAJURVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
I n this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed the validity, legality and propriety of order dated
24.01.2023, passed in MJC No. 11/2022, by the First Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Tehsil Badwaah, District Khargone whereby the application filed under
Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit has been
decreed on account of settlement and the petitioner was not party to that
agreement, therefore, the decree is invalid. The petitioner had filed application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 2/10/2023
6:42:34 PM
under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC against the compromise decree for recalling of
the judgment and decree along with an application under Section 151 of CPC.
The learned Trial Court has not decided the application under Order 9 Rule 13
of CPC but has decided the application under Section 151 of CPC holding that
as per Section 257 of the MPLRC, the proceedings of Sections 109 and 110
of MPLRC is the prerogative of the revenue Courts and not the civil Courts and
at the same time it is held that the Civil Court is not superior Court to the
revenue Court, therefore, the application cannot be entertained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the
wrong decree passed by the trial Court, the revenue authorities are substituting
the name of the petitioner from the revenue records, therefore, the finding of the
Court below is incorrect. The order impugned dated 24.01.2023 deserves to be
set aside.
O n perusal of the impugned order dated 24.01.2023, it is seen that the
trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application. However,
looking to the urgency in the matter, the trial Court is directed to decide the
pending application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC as expeditiously as
possible, preferably, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
VD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 2/10/2023
6:42:34 PM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 2/10/2023
6:42:34 PM
