Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranveer Singh vs Ved Singh on 30 November, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 30 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 5303 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. RANVEER SINGH S/O SHRI ROSHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VILLAGE PHOOL
SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR, TEHSIL
PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMVARAN SINGH S/O SHRI KUMHER
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILLAGE
PHOOL SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR,
TEHSIL PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RASAL SINGH S/O SHRI KUMHER SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, VILLAGE PHOOL
SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR, TEHSIL
PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DESHRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI KUMHAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, VILLAGE PHOOL
SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR, TEHSIL
PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.C. CHANDIL - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS)
AND
1. VED SINGH S/O SHRI PHOOL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 82 YEARS, VILLAGE PHOOL SINGH
KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR, TEHSIL PORSA,
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIDDI SINGH S/O SHRI PHOOL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, VILLAGE PHOOL
SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR, TEHSIL
PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
3. SHYAM SINGH S/O LATE SHRI KARAN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, VILLAGE
PHOOL SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR,
TEHSIL PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RADHESHYAM S/O LATE SHRI BHURE
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, VILLAGE
PHOOL SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR,
TEHSIL PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. BALVEER SINGH S/O LATE SHRI BHURE
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE
PHOOL SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR,
TEHSIL PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. MHAILA BETI BAI W/O LATE SHRI BHRE
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, VILLAGE
PHOOL SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR,
TEHSIL PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SUB DIVISION OFFICER AMBHA MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. TEHSILDAR TEHSILDAR PORSA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. RAMNARESH SINGH S/O LATE SHRI NIRPAL
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, VILLAGE
PHOOL SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR,
TEHSIL PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. BHIM SINGH S/O LATE SHRI NIRPAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE PHOOL
SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR, TEHSIL
PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SUNIL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI NIRPAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE PHOOL
SINGH KA PURA, MAUJA RAIPUR, TEHSIL
3
PORSA, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NAROTTAM SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO. 1 TO 6)
BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO. 7 TO 9/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
With consent heard finally.
1. Present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution
taking exception to order dated 2.8.2017 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class
II Ambah, District Morena whereby application preferred by petitioners as
defendants under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC has been rejected.
2. Respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction against the present petitioners on the basis of a Will
executed by one Chhoti Bai in favour of petitioners. Petitioners/defendants
contested the case by filing written statement. Beside that, counter-claim
was filed by present petitioners seeking declaration over the land in
question on the strength of another Will executed by Chhoti Bai in favour
of present petitioners. Now two Wills are on record and matter is to be
decided on the strength of Wills and their authenticity.
3. Petitioners earlier filed an application for mutation before
Tehsildar Porsa on the strength of Will executed by Chhoti Bai in their
favour and mutation proceedings were held and concluded. In the said
proceedings Will executed in favour of petitioners was filed in original, and
therefore, it is part of record of Tehsildar court since then.
4. Petitioners wanted the Will in original which was executed in their
favour from the court of Tehsildar and despite all efforts made nothing
affirmative came, therefore, petitioners moved an application under Order
XIII Rule 10 CPC for calling the Will in original from Court of Tehsildar
(record in Court of Tehsildar). Said application was rejected. Therefore,
this petition has been filed.
5. It is the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners that
approach of authority was too pedantic and does not serve the cause of
justice because despite efforts being made for requisition of original Will
from court of Tehsildar, but failed. Therefore, appropriate remedy was to
move that application which was rejected by the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer and
supported the impugned order. According to him, no reason has been
assigned to get the documents from Court of Tehsildar. He relied upon the
judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok
Choudhary vs. Gwalior Dairy Ltd & Ors, 2018 (2) MPLJ 301.
7. Heard.
8. This is a case where petitioners/defendants are seeking requisition
of Will in original from disposed case/record from Court of Tehsildar
Porsa.
9. Order XIII Rule 10 CPC is reproduced for ready reference : -
10. Court may send for papers from its own
records or from other Courts. - (1) The Court
may of its own motion, and may in its discretion
upon the application of any of the parties to a
suit, send for, either from its own records or from
any other Court, record of any other suit or
proceedings, and inspect the same.
( 2 ) Every application made under this rule
(unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported
by an affidavit showing how the record is
material to the suit in which the application is
made, and that the applicant cannot without
unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly
authenticated copy of the record or of such
portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that
the production of the original is necessary for the
purposes of justice.
( 3 ) Nothing contained in this rule shall be
deemed to enable the Court to use in evidence
any document which under the law of evidence
would be inadmissible in the suit.
10. Perusal of Rule 10 reveals that trial Court even suo moto can
requisition for record from other court in the interest of justice. In civil
litigation documents are important evidence and when Will is executed
allegedly in favour of petitioners and original Will lies with the record in
Court of Tehsildar then to serve the cause of justice it is imperative that
record be requisitioned.
11.In adjudication, Truth ought to be the ultimate Victor and Justice
should be the Ultimate Goal.
12. In the instant case, approach of trial Court was too pedantic and
procedural. When a document which could have been requisitioned from
the Court of Tehsildar and would have thrown light over the issue for
resolution of dispute then the approach which serve the cause of justice
should be adopted rather than getting confused in the cobweb of
procedure.
13. Resultantly, petition is hereby allowed and trial Court is directed
to requisition the Will (original) from the Court of Tehsildar Porsa from
the record of mutation proceeding case No.35/07x08/v-6 (Ranveer Singh
and Ors. vs. State of M.P. ) registered earlier by the petitioners.
Thereafter, trial shall proceed.
14. Since matter was pending since 2017, therefore, it is expected
that parties shall not take undue adjournments and shall cooperate in early
disposal of the case.
15. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms subject
to payment of cost of Rs.250/- to the respondents plaintiffs.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2023.11.30
18:46:03 +05'30'
