Satrughan Prasad Pande Bra vs Laxman Prasad Pandey
2023 Latest Caselaw 4750 MP

                            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. APPEAL No. 5574 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
SATRUGHAN PRASAD PANDE BRA S/O SHRI
RAMPYARERAM,       AGED   ABOUT   56   YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE PADKHURI
KOTHAR, 587, P.S. AND TEH RAMPUR NAIKIN, SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT )

AND
1.    LAXMAN     PRASAD   PANDEY    S/O     SHRI
      RAMPYARESAM OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
      R/O VILLAGE PADKHURI KOTHAR, 587, P.S. TEH
      RAMPUR NAIKIN DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    NANDISWAR PRASAD BRAHMAN S/O NAGENDRA
      PRASAD BRA., AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O
      VILLAGE PADKHURI KOTHAR 587 P.S. AND
      TEHSIL RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    SHIVENDRA PRASAD BRA. S/O SHRI NAGENDRA
      PRASDA BRA., AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
      PADKHURI KOTHAR 587 P.S. AND TEHSIL
      RAMPUR NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    DASHRATH     PRASAD    PANDEY    S/O
      RAMPYARESAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
      PADKHURI KOTHAR 587 P.S. AND TEHSIL
      RAMPUR NAIKIN DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

5.    THE STATE OF MP THROUGH COLLECTOR SIDHI
                              2
      DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

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

O n a call given by the State Bar Council of M.P. the Lawyers are abstaining from work in spite of letter dated 22.03.2023, issued by the Bar Council of India thereby requesting the State Bar Council of M.P. to follow the various dictums passed by the Supreme Court from time to time in respect of strike. Even then none appeared for the parties.

A 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 even include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as being debarred from practice."

In spite of that Lawyers are abstaining from court work.

Under these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to issue notice to counsel for the appellant as well as to counsel for the respondents to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for disobeying the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. and others (supra).

Office is directed to register separate proceedings for the same. This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 43 Rule (1) (r) of CPC has been filed against the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Sidhi (Link Court Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi) in RCA No.18/17 arising out of order dated 24.08.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Class - I, Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi.

It appears that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of title, for permanent injunction as well as for declaration of sale deed as null and void.

The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi in RCSA No.105- A/2017.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the respondents No.1 to 4 filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC. An

application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was also filed and by the impugned order dated 24.09.2019, the Appellate Court had restrained the appellant from raising any new construction during the pendency of the appeal. From the order-sheets, it appears that the appeal was listed for final arguments on 22.11.2019. There is no interim order in the present appeal. Much water has been flown under the bridge. It is not known as to whether the appeal is pending or not?

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that with the efflux of time, this Miscellaneous Appeal has lost its importance. However, it is directed that if RCA No.18/2017 is still pending, the First Appellate Court shall decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.03.28 12:01:03 +05'30'