Shiv Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3048 MP

                                                        1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                            ON THE 20 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            SECOND APPEAL No. 519 of 2011

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SHIV PRASAD S/O R. N. VAISHVAR, AGED ABOUT
                                 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH DISTT. & TEH.
                                 SINGROULI M.P.

                           2.    LALLAN PRASAD S/O R.N. VAISHVAR, AGED
                                 ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH DISTT.
                                 & TEH. SINGROULI M.P.

                           3.    LALLU PRASAD S/O R.N. VAISHVAR, AGED ABOUT
                                 67 YEARS R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH DISTT. & TEH.
                                 SINGROULI M.P.,

                           4.    JAI PRASAD S/O KRISHNA PRASAD VAISHVAR,
                                 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH
                                 DISTT. & TEH. SINGROULI M.P.

                           5.    SMT. DEWASI W/O JAI PRASAD VAISHVAR, AGED
                                 ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH DISTT.
                                 & TEH. SINGROULI M.P.

                           6.    SMT. SUKHRAJI W/O LALLAN PRASAD, AGED
                                 ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH DISTT.
                                 & TEH. SINGROULI M.P.

                           7.    SMT. PUNVASI W/O LALLU PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
                                 64 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH DISTT. & TEH.
                                 SINGROULI M.P.

                           8.    SMT. RAIMAN KUWARI W/O SHIV PRASAD, AGED
                                 ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH DISTT.
                                 & TEH. SINGROULI M.P.

                                                                               .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI BRAJESH MISHRA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL
Signing time: 22-Feb-23
4:05:16 PM
                                                        2
                                 COLLECTOR DISTT. SINGROULI M.P.

                           2.    NCL (NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD) THR. ITS
                                 CMD    SINGRAULI, DISTRICT   SINGRAULI
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    GAJRUPA W/O K.P. VAISHVAR, AGED ABOUT 77
                                 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NAVGARH DISTT. & TEH.
                                 SINGROULI M.P.

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI VIKAS KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the

judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Singrauli in Regular Civil Appeal No.8-A/2009, arising out of the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Waidhan, District Singrauli in Civil Suit No.90-A/1998.

The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed and the said applications were allowed by order dated 02.08.2001 and the plaintiffs were directed to implead 26 persons as defendants as well as to supply a copy of plaint and the documents. The said order was never complied with by the plaintiffs and accordingly the suit was dismissed by the order 01.04.2009.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the appellants preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011.

Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 22-Feb-23 4:05:16 PM

submitted by the counsel for the appellants that it is true that appellants did not implead 26 persons as defendants inspite of clear directions by the trial court, however, he prayed for one more opportunity to do the needful.

Considered the submission made by the counsel for the appellants. The appellants had neither impleaded 26 persons as defendants in the trial nor any effort was made by them before the First Appellate Court and even in this case no such application has been filed although this appeal is pending since 2011.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of another opportunity to comply the order passed by the Civil Court.

As no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, accordingly the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Singrauli in RCA No.8-A/2009, arising out of the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I in Civil Suit No.90-A/1998 are hereby affirmed.

The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG /-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 22-Feb-23 4:05:16 PM