Shanti Bai vs The State Of M.P. Through The Collector
2024 Latest Caselaw 3018 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shanti Bai vs The State Of M.P. Through The Collector on 1 February, 2024

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                                  CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                        &
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                             ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                            MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1261 of 2005

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SHANTI BAI W/O TEJRAM PALIWAL, AGED ABOUT
                                 58 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MAHUA KENDRA, POST
                                 KAUNSETA NAYAK, DIST. DAMOH (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT SUSHILABAI W/O KESHAVPRASAD PALIWAL,
                                 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O PURANA BAZAR,
                                 ASATI,WARD NO.2, DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SMT KANTABAI W/O RAMNIVAS PALIWAL, AGED
                                 ABOUT   52 YEARS, R/O TAMAKHU BAZAR,
                                 CHANDNI CHOWK, RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    BHAGWAN SHRI RAM        MANDIR,THROUGH
                                 SHEBAYAT THE APPLICANTS NO.1 TO 3 RATLAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI SANDEEP KOCHATTA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE COLLECTOR
                                 DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE TEHSILDAR RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This application coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                           Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 01-02-2024
21:00:30
                                                                2
                                                                ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 114, 151 & 152 read with Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C. to amend and modify the judgment dated 15.3.2005 passed in Second Appeal No.85 of 1998.

2. The plea of the petitioner is that in the judgment of this Court dated 15.3.2005 passed in Second Appeal No.85 of 1988, the observations made therein in para 11 hurt his legal rights. The said para reads as follows:-

11. Before parting, I would like to mention that during pendency of his second appeal, Jamna Bai had died. This Court does not know by whom and under which order, who is looking after the affairs of temple 'Shri Ram Mandir ji' and the lands in question of the said temple. The State Government is free to pass necessary order in that regard by appointing "Vyavasthapak" in accordance with law who shall look after the affairs of temple including the suit land of the said temple.

3. On hearing the contentions, we do not find any reason to interfere. Firstly, we have our own doubts as to how Section 114 or Section 151 of CPC would be applicable. Section 152 of CPC is certainly not applicable since it refers to only clerical and arithmetical mistakes. Nor Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC is applicable in the instant case. In para 11, the Court has expressed its view with regard to the manner in which the affairs of the temple will be considered by the State in question. Assuming that the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he has a remedy to challenge it in a manner known to law. It cannot be done in a petition under Section 114, 151 and 152 or Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC.

4. Hence, we do not find any good ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

                                (RAVI MALIMATH)                                   (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
                                  CHIEF JUSTICE                                           JUDGE
                           PK