Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mus Sita Bai Barman vs Smt. Somvati Barman D/O Babulal ... on 27 March, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27 th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 5092 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. MUS SITA BAI BARMAN W/O LATE ANIL
BARMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE PATPARA P.S. AND TAHSIL
NAOWRAJABAD UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANKIT BARMAN S/O LATE ANIL BARMAN, AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
VILLAGE PATPARA P.S. AND TEHSIL
NAOWRAJABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ANURAG BARMAN S/O LATE ANIL BARMAN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
VILLAGE PATPARA P.S. AND TEHSIL
NAOWRAJABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. SMT. SOMVATI BARMAN D/O BABULAL BARMAN
W/O MATHURA BARMAN BHAGAT SINGH WARD
RANJHI JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MUS.SHYAM BAI BARMAN W/O JAGDISH
BARMAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, VILLAGE
CHHADAKURD P.S. / TEHSIL NAOWRAJABAD
DISTT.UMARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BANTI BARMAN S/O LATE JAGDISH BARMAN,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGE CHHADAKURD
P.S. / TEHSIL NAOWRAJABAD DISTT.UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRAKASH BARMAN S/O LATE JAGDISH BARMAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, VILLAGE CHHADAKURD
P.S. / TEHSIL NAOWRAJABAD DISTT.UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 31-Mar-23
6:33:07 PM
2
5. JYOTI BARMAN D/O LATE JAGDISH BARMAN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, VILLAGE CHHADAKURD
P.S. / TEHSIL NAOWRAJABAD DISTT.UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. GHANSHYAM BARMAN S/O LATE BABULAL
BARMAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE
CHHADAKURD P.S. / TEHSIL NAOWRAJABAD
DISTT.UMARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. PURUSHOTTAM BARMAN S/O LATE BABULAL
BARMAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, VILLAGE
CHHADAKURD P.S. / TEHSIL NAOWRAJABAD
DISTT.UMARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. MUS.MAYADEVI BARMAN W/O LATE RATAN
KUMAR BARMAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
VILLAGE CHHADAKURD P.S. / TEHSIL
NAOWRAJABAD DISTT.UMARIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. MANOJ KUMAR S/O LATE RATAN KUMAR
BARMAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, VILLAGE
CHHADAKURD P.S. / TEHSIL NAOWRAJABAD
DISTT.UMARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. YOGITA BARMAN D/O LATE RATAN BARMAN,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE CHHADAKURD
P.S. / TEHSIL NAOWRAJABAD DISTT.UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR UMARIA DISTT.UMARIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JUBIN PRASAD - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.11/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The Lawyers are abstaining from work in the light of a call given by the
Bar Council of State of Madhya Pradesh. The Bar Council of India by its letter
dated 22.03.2023 had condemned the resolution passed by the Bar Council of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 31-Mar-23
6:33:07 PM
State of Madhya Pradesh and had requested to follow the dictums of the
Supreme Court passed from time to time in respect of strike. In spite of that the
Lawyers have not resumed work.
The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.03.2023 passed in In
Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. & others
(W.P. No.7295/2023) has issued the following directions:
(i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh
are hereby directed to attend to their court work forthwith. They shall
represent their clients in the respective cases before the respective
courts forthwith;
(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall
be presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be
faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings
for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the
court work, the same would be considered as disobedience of these
directions and he will be faced with serious consequences including
initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report
as to which lawyer has deliberately abstained from attending the
court;
( v ) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of
advocates who have prevented other advocates from entering the
court premises or from conducting their cases in the court;
(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 31-Mar-23
6:33:07 PM
even include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well
as being debarred from practice.
In spite of that the counsel for the parties are not appearing.
Accordingly, issue notice to the counsel for the appellant to show cause
as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for disobeying the
order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case
Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. (supra).
Office is directed to register separate proceedings for the same.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed
against the order dated 23.04.2019 passed by IInd Civil Judge, Class-2, District
Umariya in Civil Suit No.72/2017 by which the application filed by the petitioner
for rejecting counter claim has been rejected. An objection was raised by the
petitioner before the trial Court that since counter claim has been filed against
the co-defendant, therefore, it is not maintainable.
One of the ground raised in miscellaneous petition is that petitioner has
challenged the Will as well as the mutation done on the basis of said Will,
therefore, the State of Madhya Pradesh was not a necessary party but since the
defendant No.2 to 10 are seeking declaration of title by filing counter claim,
therefore, State is a necessary party and the counter claim can be filed against
the plaintiff only and not against the co-defendant.
Considered the grounds raised in the writ petition.
The petitioner has filed a suit by claiming that the property in dispute was
an ancestral property. In the counter claim, several allegations have been made
against the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that in fact the counter claim is against
the plaintiff and incidentally it touches the defendant also.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 31-Mar-23
6:33:07 PM
Thus, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 734, it is
held that the counter claim filed by the respondent is maintainable, which reads
as under:-
" 21. Normally, a counterclaim, though based on a
different cause of action than the one put in suit by
the plaintiff could be made. But, it appears to us that a
counterclaim has necessarily to be directed against the
plaintiff in the suit, though incidentally or along with it,
it may also claim relief against the co-defendants in
the suit................"
Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. As no
jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court could be pointed out in the writ
petition.
Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
vinay*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Signing time: 31-Mar-23
6:33:07 PM
