Suresh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8786 MP

                                                              1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                       WP No. 9720 of 2023
                                        (SURESH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 14-06-2023
                                 Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                 Shri Devashish Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 109 & 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code for mutation only on the ground that the respondents are going to file SLP against the order passed by the High Court in second appeal.

It is contended that suit for declaration and injunction was decreed. Against the said order, First Appeal was preferred by the respondents which was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the second appeal was preferred before the High Court. The same was also dismissed bearing SA No. 298/2001 and, therefore, the respondent No. 5 has committed an error in rejecting the application only on the ground that the respondents are going to file SLP.

Counsel for the respondents/State raises preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of remedy of appeal

under Section 44 of MP Land Revenue Code.

At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled law that there is no absolute bar for this Court for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors (1998) 8 SCC 1.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-06-2023 17:31:35

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is a decree in favour of the petitioner and the second appeal filed by the respondents have also been dismissed by the High Court, the objection of the respondents regarding availability of statutory remedy is rejected.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by registered mode only, returnable within four weeks.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

soumya

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-06-2023 17:31:35