S.K. Mihani vs Ramgopal Mandev
2023 Latest Caselaw 10598 MP

                                                               1
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                    ON THE 11 th OF JULY, 2023
                                           MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3771 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           S.K. MIHANI S/O LATE SHRI B.M. MIHANI, AGED
                           ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                           H.NO. 11 INDRA BUHAR COLONY AIRPORT ROAD
                           BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           RAMGOPAL NAMDEV S/O SHRI KALURAM NAMDEV,
                           AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O BARELA GAON GALI NO. 1
                           LALGHATI POLICE STATION KOHEFIZA BHOPAL
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

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

This miscellaneous appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned

26th District Judge, Bhopal in MJC No.87/2022, rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC on the ground that the application was filed after sufficient delay and no cogent application was filed seeking condonation of delay.

I have perused the impugned order. It records a categorical finding that

Signature Not Verified on 25.07.2022 new counsel Shri Sunil Singh and Shri S.K. Mihani had appeared Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 12-07-2023 12:11:43

before the Court, therefore, they had knowledge about the ex-parte order dated 28.04.2018, yet application was filed on 27.01.2022 without supporting it with an application for condonation of delay. It has also recorded a fact that Shri Mihani had appeared on 18.02.2019, 26.03.2019, 22.04.2019, 15.01.2019, 10.12.2019, 07.01.2020 and 10.02.2020. One counsel Shri Mohd. Jafar had filed his Vakalatnama on behalf Shri Mihani. On 11.10.2021, one Santosh Lal Verma had also filed his Vakalatnama in the matter. Therefore, it is evident that despite having knowledge, appropriate proceedings were not undertaken to seek setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order, calling for interference.

In view of above, appeal fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 12-07-2023 12:11:43