Brijbasiya vs Lakshman Prasad
2023 Latest Caselaw 300 MP

                                                                    1
                                         IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                         ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                                         MISC. APPEAL No. 2978 of 2004

                                        BETWEEN:-
                                        1.

BRIJBASIYA D/O RAMDULARE W/O RAMKHELAWAN BHUJWA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEAR S , R/O BAGHOR, PATRALAYA, BAGHOR, TAHSIL, SINHAWAL, DISTRIC SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAMCHANDRA S/O PARMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O DHANHA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. RAMGOPAL S/O PARMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YE A R S , R/O DHANHA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. RAMSUMER S/O RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YE A R S , R/O DHANHA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. DUASIYA D/O RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEAR S, R/O NAUDHIYA AABAD, P.O. JIYAWAN, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. LACHHIMINIYA D/O RAMESHWAR BHUJWA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O HINAUTI, P.O. HINAUTI, TEHSIL SINHAWAL, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. SUNIYA D/O RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YE A R S , R/O DHANHA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. KALU S/O POLHAI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O DHANHA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH) Signature Not Verified SAN

9. INDRA BAHADUR ALIAS NICHAU S/O POLHAI Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI BHUJWA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O DHANHA, Date: 2023.01.05 18:09:38 IST P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI

(MADHYA PRADESH)

10. CHHOTELAL S/O GOLHAI BHUJWA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O DHANHA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

11. CHHATHILAL S/O GOLHAI, AGED ABOUT 35 YE A R S , R/O DHANHA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

12. KUBER S/O GOLHAI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O DHANHA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

13. RAIMUNIYA D/O RAMDULARE BHUJWA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SINHAWAL, TEHSIL SINHAWAL, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

14. SHANKHI (SINCE DECEASED W/O PARMESHWAR B H U J WA NAUDHIYA AABAD, P.O. JIYAWAN, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

15. PANKHI W/O RAMESHWAR BHUJWA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O DHANBA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

16. PHOOLMATI ALIAS SURAJIYA W/O GOLHAI BHUJWA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O DHANBA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

17. CHAMELIYA W/O GOLHAI BHUJWA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O DHANBA, P.O. JHAKHARAWAL, TEHSIL DEOSAR, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (NONE PRESENT)

AND

1. LAKSHMAN PRASAD S/O BAIJNATH RAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SAHUAAR, P.O. JIYAWAN, TAHSIL DEOSAR, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified SAN

2. RAMAYAN PRASAD S/O BAIJNATH RAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SAHUAAR, P.O. Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI JIYAWAN, TAHSIL DEOSAR, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH) Date: 2023.01.05 18:09:38 IST

3. SURESH PRASAD S/O BAIJNATH RAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SAHUAAR, P.O. JIYAWAN, TAHSIL DEOSAR, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. NARESH PRASAD S/O BAIJNATH RAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SAHUAAR, P.O. JIYAWAN, TAHSIL DEOSAR, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE PRESENT)

Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the following:

ORDER This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by defendants under Order 43 Rule 1(4) CPC, being aggrieved of judgment dated 06.09.2004, passed by learned Fourth Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Sidhi, in regular Civil appeal No.139/2004 (Lakshman Prasad and others Vs. Brijbasiya and others), arising out of order dated 13.08.1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Deosar, District Sidhi, in Civil Suit No.17-A/1994, whereby, plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that registered sale deed 17.05.1996 is forged and that the mutation order be declared as illegal, null and void and plaintiffs be declared as owner of the property.

In that case, learned Court below has remanded the matter to the trial Court for decision afresh on its own merits, setting aside the finding of the suit

to be barred by limitation.

There is no error apparent in the impugned order calling for interference in the remand order. Specific issue has been framed in regard to the limitation Signature Not Verified SAN and when this is examined in the light of judgment of this High Court in Vipin Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2023.01.05 18:09:38 IST Kumar and others Vs. Sarojni [2013 (1) MPLJ 480], no infirmity can be

attributed to the impugned judgment and decree calling for interference.

Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2023.01.05 18:09:38 IST