Chandraprabha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1166 MP

                                                         1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                     &
                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                              ON THE 19 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                               WRIT APPEAL No. 272 of 2019

                          BETWEEN:-
                          CHANDRAPRABHA W/O SHRI OMPRAKASH JI
                          RAJORIYA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, SADAR BAJAR
                          SITAMAU, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                          (SHRI ABHISHEK TUGNAWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                          APPELLANT)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                COLLECTOR, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    WILLFRADE T SINGH S/O TITUS SINGH ISAI,
                                AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
                                R/O SITAMAU. DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                          ( SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
                          RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                Th is appeal coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT
                          ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
                                                          ORDER

This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya(Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005(in short ... "the Act") is filed against the order dated 12/09/2018, passed in W.P.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:02:00 PM

No.4551/2013.

The brief facts of the case are that the Writ Petition No.4551/2013 was filed by the State Government being aggrieved by the order dated 24/03/2007, passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior(M.P.) wherein the revision filed by the appellant was allowed.

Notice was issued to the respondents and initially stay was also granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the appellant filed the reply to the writ petition and denied the averments alongwith the reply. The appellant also filed an application for for vacation of stay which was registered as I.A. No.17841/2017. Vide order dated 12/09/2018, the learned Single

Judge dismissed the application for vacating stay. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been filed.

The Registry has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ appeal against the pending representation and an interlocutory order.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal before the Division Bench, but an appeal can be preferred against the order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the State placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain & Others Vs State of M.P. and Others reported in 2007(3) M.P.L.J. 565, wherein it is held that an appeal from a judgment of order is maintainable only when an interlocutory order has the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:02:00 PM

semblance of final order or affect the rights of the parties, it can be treated as an order for all the purposes. The proviso stipulates that no appeal would lie against an interlocutory order.

On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that same is not in the nature of a final order or affects the rights of the parties.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed.

However, looking to the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2013, the Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in the third week of February, 2023 before appropriate Bench. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition as expeditiously as possible.

                               (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                      (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                        JUDGE                                      JUDGE


                          pn




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 1/20/2023
6:02:00 PM