Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Bhagwati Bai vs Smt. Latabai on 18 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 18 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 25177 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. BHAGWATI BAI W/O LAKHANLAL MORE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NEAR SINDHIPURA
GATE, AALAMGANJ, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UMESH S/O LAKHANLAL MORE, AGED ABOUT 25
Y E A R S , R/O NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE
AALAMGANJ TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. YUVRAJ S/O LAKHANLAL MORE, AGED ABOUT 23
Y E A R S , R/O NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE
AALAMGANJ TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. LAXMI BAI W/O HIRALAL MEHRA D/O
LAKHANLAL MORE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O
NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE AALAMGANJ TAHSIL
AND DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PRAVEEN S/O LATE JEEVANLAL MORE, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE
AALAMGANJ TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PANKAJ S/O LATE JEEVANLAL MORE, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE
AALAMGANJ TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. LOKESH S/O LATE JEEVANLAL MORE, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE
AALAMGANJ TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SONU BAI D/O LATE LAKHANLAL MORE R/O
NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE AALAMGANJ TAHSIL
AND DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 19-10-
2023 10:16:09
2
9. KAVITA MORE D/O LATE LAKHANLAL MORE R/O
NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE AALAMGANJ TAHSIL
AND DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI R.K.SANGHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. LATABAI W/O LATE DEVIDAS MORE, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O NEAR SINDHIPURA GATE,
AALAMGANJ, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JYOTSNA D/O LATE DEVIDAS MORE, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O GRAM DHORANI POST
RANGAON TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KHANDWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. RAM KUVAR BAI W/O LATE NARAYAN
MORE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O NEAR
SINDHIPURA GATE AALAMGANJ TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
by the Petitioners being aggrieved of order dated 26.7.2022 passed in Case
No.0038/Appeal/2020-2021 by learned Additional Commissioner, Indore
Division, Indore for a matter originating from Burhanpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a Coordinate
Bench of this High Court vide order dated 16.6.2022 had admitted Second
Appeal No.1364/2018 and after admitting the said Second Appeal directed that
operation and effect of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court shall remain stayed and the status-quo with regard to property
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 19-10-
2023 10:16:09
in question shall be maintained by the respective parties. In terms of the
provisions as contained in Section 178(1-A) of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959 (for short " M.P.L.R.Code", it is evident that if a civil suit
is filed within the period specified in the proviso to Sub-Section (1) and stay
order is obtained from the Civil Court, the Tahsildar shall stay his proceedings
pending the decision of the Civil Court. Since Second Appeal has been filed,
which was continuation of the suit, the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore,
should not have shown indulgence in a revenue matter.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the
material available on record.
The issue, which emerges for consideration, is that whatever language
being used by learned counsel for the petitioners but the effect and import of it
is that there is stay on the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court by this High Court in Second Appeal. If there is violation of
any any order of stay or status-quo then whether remedy will be before the said
Court where Second Appeal is pending or a fresh Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India will be maintainable.
Taking the aforesaid facts into consideration that Section 178(1-A) of the
M.P.L.R.Code provides that if Civil Suit is filed within the period specified in
the proviso to Sub-Section (1) and the proviso below Sub-Section (1) of
Section 178 of the M.P.L.R.Code provides that "Provided that if any question
of title is raised, the Tahsildar shall stay the proceedings before him for a period
of three months to facilitate the institution of a Civil Suit for determination of the
question of title.
If there is any violation of the order(s) of the Civil Court which by
extension includes the High Court, which has been given jurisdiction to hear and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 19-10-
2023 10:16:09
decide the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 then, in my considered opinion, the petitioners have to approach the said
Court where Second Appeal is pending alleging non-compliance of its order(s)
and seeking remedy for the said non-compliance. Separate Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. If at the insistence of
learned counsel for the petitioners, hypothetically, this Writ Petition is held to be
maintainable then it will amount to multiplicity of the proceedings.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 19-10-
2023 10:16:09
