Dilip Saxena vs Ku. Shubhanjali Saxena
2023 Latest Caselaw 18618 MP

                                                               1
                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                       MCC No. 443 of 2022
                                      (DILIP SAXENA AND OTHERS Vs KU. SHUBHANJALI SAXENA AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 06-11-2023
                                 Shri Arun Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the applicants.

                                 Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that I.A.No.6442/2023 which is an application for dispensing with the service of respondent No.7 is rendered infructuous.

Accordingly, I.A.No.6442/2023 stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

Also heard on I.A.No.9165/2022 which is an application for taking documents on record.

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that he does not wish to press I.A.No.9165/2022 as the same is not required to be considered inasmuch as, only a restoration of First Appeal No.190/2002 is being sought.

Per contra, learned counsel or the respondents has opposed the said prayer of the applicants for withdrawal of I.A.No.9165/2022. It is contended by

the counsel that the applicants herein are making effort to mislead this Court on one and another pretext. The document which has been brought on record as Khasra contained in Annexure P/1 reflects that the property in question is recorded in the name of Ms. Shubhanjali Saxena, Ms. Shailja Saxena, Mr. Sandeep Saxena and Mr. Dileep Saxena. However, there is an attempt by the applicants to grab the property and thus, as the applicants are guilty of abuse of the process of the Court, I.A.No.9165/2022 cannot be permitted to be withdrawn and the strict action is required to be taken against the applicants. It Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 11/9/2023 5:53:35 PM

is contended by the counsel that in terms of the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2002, the mutation was recommended by the Tahsildar Huzur, District Rewa vide order dated 17.03.2022 and in terms of the said order, the Patwari has already carried out the entries on 22.03.2022. The applicants have referred the respondents as culprit and therefore, the applicants have committed an offence under Section 500 of the IPC and also there is a false certificate, hence, they are required to be dealt with under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, counsel submits that the said prayer for withdrawal of I.A.No.9165/2022, deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions on I.A.No.9165/2022, a perusal of the

same reflects that by the said application, the applicants have made an attempt to bring on record the order passed by the Patwari and also the order of Tahsildar. The applicants are not pressing the said application. Even otherwise this present MCC is for restoration of Fist Appeal No.199/2002 which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the objection which the respondents wish to take, can be taken by the respondents when the said First Appeal No.190/2002 is restored to its original number.

Accordingly, I.A.No. 9165/2022 is dismissed as not pressed. Heard on I.A.No.13084/2023 which is an application for dismissal of this application for restoration filed by the respondents.

It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that First Appeal 190/2002 has been dismissed by this Court on 07.02.2022 as no one had appeared on behalf of the applicants/appellants. There are two applications one is filed in English and other is in Hindi. The application dated 16.08.2022 it has been contended by Mr. Dileep Saxena that the application for restoration has

Signature Not Verified rendered infructuous. Therefore, counsel contends that the present application Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 11/9/2023 5:53:35 PM

for restoration of First Appeal No.190/2002 deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that in the present case, only restoration of First Appeal No.190/2002 has been sought and the respondents on each and every date, is coming with an application in order to drag the proceedings. The First Appeal No.190/2002 was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 07.02.2022 and therefore, counsel submits that all the questions which are being taken recourse to by the respondents in present application for restoration, cannot be considered.

In the present case, respondents have filed a preliminary objection as well as reply to the application for restoration and it is the stand of the respondents that earlier as well, First Appeal No.190/2002 was dismissed on 31.08.2015 and the same was later on restored vide order dated 21.09.2015 and while restoring the First Appeal on earlier occasion, no opportunity to the respondents was granted.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on the question of restoration, the counsel for the respondents wish to advance his arguments separately.

Considering the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the said interlocutory applications pending.

Accordingly, I.A.No.13084/2023 is dismissed and I.A.No.12866/2022

which is an application for clarification regarding document vide I.A.No.9165/2022 is also dismissed.

Let the MCC be listed for final hearing at motion stage in the week commencing 04.12.2023.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 11/9/2023 5:53:35 PM

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 11/9/2023 5:53:35 PM