Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anshul Elani vs Shakuntala Agrawal Deceased Through ... on 22 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 22 nd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 6647 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANSHUL ELANI S/O SHRI MAHESH ELANI
OCCUPATION: OCC. BUSINESS GARMENTS THE
ANOKHI SHOP NO. 2 PLOT NO. 6 NEW MARKET T.T.
NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHAKUNTALA AGRAWAL DECEASED THROUGH
LRS SHRI JAGDISH AGARWAL S/O LATE SHRI
MANOHAR AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN R/O 57 NEW MLA
COLONY DEPOT SQUARE JWAHAR CHOWK
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI NARESH AGRAWAL S/O SHRI J.P. AGRAWAL
OCCUPATION: JWELLERS SHOP FAX/E MAIL R/O
57, NEW MLA COLONY, DEPOT SQUARE, JWAHAR
CHOWK, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRI VIVEK AGRAWAL S/O SHRI J.P. AGRAWAL
R/O 57, NEW MLA COLONY, DEPOT SQUARE,
JWAHAR CHOWK, BHOPAL FAX/EMAIL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. PREMLATA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI VINOD
AGRAWAL R/O BADA MANDIR, GHANTAGHAR
CHOWK, HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. MAYA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI RAVINDRA
A G R AWA L R/O 3-2-328, CHAPPAL BAZAR
HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD (ANDHRA
PRADESH)
6. SMT. MAMTA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI VINOD
A G R AWA L R/O NEAR AMBEDKAR CHOWK,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHAM
THAKKER
Signing time: 11/22/2023
6:39:01 PM
2
NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)
7. SMT. MEENA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI SUNIL
AGRAWAL R/O 35-C, KAMLMANA ROAD, NAGPUR
(MAHARASHTRA)
8. SMT. PUSHPA PATNI W/O SHRI ANIL PATNI R/O
701 BLOCK 3 B, VINAY FOUNTAIN, KELWARI
TEMPLE, HYDERABAD MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD
(TELANGANA)
9. SMT. SMITA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI SUMIT
A G R A WA L R/O 202, GAYATRI VIHAR,
BAGADGANJ, NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
05.09.2023 passed in MJC No.612/2022 by Seventh Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Bhopal, whereby the application moved under Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC was dismissed.
2. The respondents are legal heirs of original plaintiff Smt. Shakuntalal
Agrawal who preferred a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit
against the petitioner which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated
31.10.2022 thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC for review of the judgment mainly on the ground that the decree
has been passed in favour of dead person is nullity. According to the petitioner,
legal heir No.3- Kumari Cheena Agrawal died on 14.10.2022 whereas, the
decree was passed on 31.10.2022 without taking any steps to brought her legal
representatives on record.
3. Learned trial Court in the impugned order has observed that the factum
of death of Kumari Cheena Agrawal was duly intimated by the plaintiff to the
Court and the plaintiff was permitted to delete her name as all the legal heirs of
Kumari Cheena Agrawal were already on record and she was umarried,
therefore, the prayer was allowed and against the name of Kumari Cheena
Agrawal (dead) was noted but due to typographical error in the judgment, the
said note was not typed and it doesn't mean that the decree has been passed in
favour of the dead person.
4. The petitioner has raised another ground that though the defence of the
petitioner was stuck down under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation
Control Act, 1961 but the petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff-
witnesses on all the grounds except the ground of eviction which was not
permitted. Even this ground is not available for review of any judgment as the
scope of review is very limited and that is not error apparent on the face of the
record or any other ground is not available to review the order of this Court.
The petitioner is free to raise this point in regular appeal.
5. The third contention of the petitioner is that the learned trial Court has
not granted compensation to the petitioner according to Section 12(6) of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It appears from the perusal of the
judgment decree that the decree has been passed under Section 12(1)(a) & (f)
and if the decree is not solely on the ground of Section 12(1) (f), the provision
of Section 12(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not applicable.
However, this may not be a ground to review the judgment and this objection
may also be raised by the petitioner in appeal.
6. In view of the above, learned trial Court has not committed any
illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner
under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Hence, the admission is declined, petition is
dismissed.
7. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all the points in
regular appeal.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Shub
