Dhanraj vs Kesar Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 11316 MP

                                                            1
                           IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 20 th OF JULY, 2023
                                               MISC. APPEAL No. 925 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DHANRAJ S/O SHAILI SINGH RAGHUWANSHI, AGED
                          ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VILL-CHIKHLIKALA TAH-
                          MULTAI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI BHANU PRATAP YADAV - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          KESAR BAI W/O GIRJASHANKAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT
                          76  YEARS, R/O VILL-CHIKHLIKALA TAH-MULTAI
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (NONE)

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

None for respondent though served.

This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC, being aggrieved of the order passed by Shri Mohan Tiwari, II Additional District Judge, Multai, District Betul (M.P.), in Civil Appeal No.79- A/2015 (Kesar Bai Vs. Dhanraj), remanding the matter in a most casual manner without even looking into the fact that when application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, was filed by the plaintiff, then it was not even supported with an affidavit. No evidence was recorded and on a very casual application being

Signature Not Verified made, same was allowed by the First Appellate Court. Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 7/21/2023 1:10:41 PM

I have perused the application contained in Annx.A/3. Said application is neither supported with an affidavit nor given any cogent reason for not filing the documents in time. None of the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC can be said to have been made so to allow the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

Thus, the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2017, passed by learned II Additional District Judge Multai, in Civil Appeal No.79-A/2015, being cryptic, is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to the concerned Additional District Judge to decide the appeal on its own merit within a period of thirty days of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In above terms, appeal stands disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 7/21/2023 1:10:41 PM