Mohan Lal vs Ramswaroop
2024 Latest Caselaw 21504 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohan Lal vs Ramswaroop on 7 August, 2024

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                                             1                              SA-2132-2018
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     SA No. 2132 of 2018
                                               (MOHAN LAL Vs RAMSWAROOP AND OTHERS )



                         Dated : 07-08-2024
                               Shri Dinesh Upadhya - Advocate for the appellant.
                               Shri Gouransh Bhurrak - Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 12.

Shri Deepak Sahu - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 13.

Heard on the question of admission and also on IA No. 11383/2018, which is an application for stay.

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 48-A/2017 by District Judge Sehore reversing the finding given by the trial court and decreeing the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, in the opinion of this Court this appeal involves substantial questions of law and as such it is admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

(A) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in allowing the application submitted by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure producing additional documents as evidence on record without showing any reason for not producing those documents before the Trial Court?

(B) Whether the decree granted by the Lower Appellate

2 SA-2132-2018 Court in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs on the basis of plea of adverse possession was sustainable in absence of any foundation of claim on the ground of Section 65 of the Limitation Act and as such the said judgment and decree was sustainable in the eyes of law or not?

Since the respondents have already put in appearance, no notice is required to be issued to them. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs seeks time to file reply to IA No. 11383/2018.

As prayed, two weeks time is granted to the respondents to file reply to the said IA.

List thereafter.

Till then, interim relief to continue.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

RAGHVENDRA