Madhya Pradesh High Court
Municipal Council Narmadapuram ( ... vs Mukesh @ Pappu Gadhwal( Dead) S/O Late ... on 24 November, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 24 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 4470 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NARMADAPURAM
(HOSHANGABAD) THROUGH CHIEF MUNICIPAL
OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
NARMADAPURAM HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PRESIDENT, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
NARMADAPURAM (HOSHANGABAD) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI RIYAZ MOHAMMAD - ADVOCATE)
AND
MUKESH @ PAPPU GADHWAL (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE RAJESH GADHWAL S/O LATE
MUNNALAL GADHWAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
BALAGANJ NARMADAPURAM (HOSHANGABAD)
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMESH JAIN - ADVOCATE)
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 6175 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NARMADAPURAM
(HOSHANGABAD) THROUGH CHIEF MUNICIPAL
OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
NARMADAPURAM (HOSHANGABAD) DISTRICT
NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. P R E S I D E N T , MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
NARM ADAPURAM , (HOSHANGABAD), DISTRICT
NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PUSHPENDRA
PATEL
Signing time: 24-11-2023
21:14:07
2
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI RIYAZ MOHAMMAD - ADVOCATE)
AND
MUKESH @ PAPPU GADHWAL ( DEAD) S/O LATE
MUNNALAL GADHWAL THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE RAJESH GADHWAL S/O LATE
MUNNALAL GADHWAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O
BALAGANJ NARMADAPURAM (HOSHANGABAD)
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMESH JAIN - ADVOCATE)
These petitions coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Registry is directed that there is lack of congruence in the paging which is
mentioned in the index and the pages which are openable on the system.
Registry is directed to carry out computer paging and also request the counsel
for the parties to make computerized paging in continuation and mention that
paging in the index and unless that is done, cases be listed in default, otherwise,
it results in wastage of precious time of the Court in matching the pages which
are referred to by the learned counsel for the parties and the pages which are
openable on the system.
2. These directions are being given because lawyers are yet not
cooperating and using the system so that there is a commonality of reference
between the Bar and the Bench.
3. Registry is requested to grant 15 days' time to the Bar to do the needful.
4. These miscellaneous petitions are filed by the Municipal Corporation,
Narmadapuram being aggrieved of the order dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure P-2)
passed by the learned First Additional Judge to First Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Narmadapuram, whereby while executing a judgment and decree of
the trial Court dated 22.10.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.14-A/2013, it granted
some time to the decree holder to pay the amount as is mentioned in the
judgment and decree and asked it to deposit that amount with CCD.
5. Petitioners' contention is that terms and conditions of the judgment and
decree could not have been altered and secondly, no direction could have been
issued to deposit the amount in CCD, inasmuch as, the Court which passed the
decree directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum Rs.1,52,362/- within a period of
two months then plaintiff was entitled to allotment of shop No.1 situated at
Sethani Ghat, Hoshangabad (Narmadapuram).
6. It is not in dispute that execution case No.08/2019 was filed by the
decree holder and in those proceedings, impugned order has been passed.
7. Shri Riyaz Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab, (2007) 14 SCC 262, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited and another Vs. Gulshan Lal and others, (2009) 13 SCC 354 so
also in case of Sanwarlal Agrawal and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Kothari
and others, (2023) 7 SCC 307.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it has come on record that present petitioners had filed appeal against
the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.14-A/2013.
As a result, the judgment and decree of the trial Court could not be executed.
Thereafter, they had filed second appeal before the High Court which again
prevented the decree holder from getting the decree executed. When these
proceedings were terminated in favour of the decree holder then he had sought
execution and in the execution proceedings, direction has been given to deposit
the amount. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no tampering with the
judgment and decree. Since delay was caused by the present petitioners
themselves, therefore, trial Court gave time to deposit the amount.
9. There is no error in directing depositing the decreetal amount in CCD,
inasmuch as, judgment debtor can always withdraw that amount from the CCD
after making a proper application to the CCD.
10. Thus, when examined on these two counts then there is no error in the
impugned order, calling for interference. The aforesaid three judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court have no application to the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
11. In view of above, petitions fail and are dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
