Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pyare Ju vs Mahenra Pal Singh on 8 February, 2024
1
C.R. No.172/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 172 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. PYARE JU S/O LATE SONE JU PARMAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
SILAPARI TEH. SHAHGARH DISTT. SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHALI RAJA S/O LATE PAHAD SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
SILAPARI, TAHSIL SHAHGARH SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEVENDRA SINGH S/O LATE PAHAD
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE SILAPARI, TAHSIL SHAHGARH
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JANDEL SINGH S/O LATE PAHAD SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
SILAPARI, TAHSIL SHAHGARH SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BHAGWAN SINGH S/O LATE PAHAD
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE SILAPARI, TAHSIL SHAHGARH
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. CHANDRA KUR D/O LATE PAHAD SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
W/O DESHDATT R/O VILLAGE UPRI, POST
BADAGAON, TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. ARVIND S/O LATE ARJUN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SILAPARI,
TAHSIL SHAHGARH SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 2/22/2024
11:02:45 AM
2
C.R. No.172/2020
8. RAJKUMARI D/O LATE ARJUN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O DHIMRAI,
TAHSIL KHURAI SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. GIRJESH KUMARI D/O LATE ARJUN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O
DHIMARI, TAHSIL KHURAI SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. INDRESH KUNWAR D/O LATE ARJUN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O
PALETHANI, TAHSIL KHURAI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. KANCHAN RAJA S/O LATE ARJUN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
SATPARA, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. HARKUNWAR D/O LATE ARJUN SINGH
R/O VILLAGE SILAPARI, TAHSIL
SHAHGARH SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. VIRENDRA SINGH S/O LATE DHIRAT
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE SILAPARI, TAHSIL SHAHGARH
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. PHOOL KUNWAR W/O LATE DHIRAT
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE SILAPARI, TAHSIL SHAHGARH
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MAHENRA PAL SINGH S/O HARPAL SINGH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILL.
PALETHANI EARLIER TEH. KHURAI
PRESENT TEH. MALTHON DISTT. SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O HARPAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PATELTHANI, EARLIER TAHSIL KHURAI,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 2/22/2024
11:02:45 AM
3
C.R. No.172/2020
PRESENT TAHSIL MALTHON, DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KEHAR SINGH S/O HARPAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PATELTHANI, EARLIER TAHSIL KHURAI,
PRESENT TAHSIL MALTHON, DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH S/O HARPAL
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE PATELTHANI , EARLIER TAHSIL
KHURAI, PRESENT TAHSIL MALTHON,
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. CHATUR SINGH S/O HARPAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PATELTHANI, EARLIER TAHSIL KHURAI,
PRESENT TAHSIL MALTHON, DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SUJAN SINGH S/O HARPAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PATELTHANI, EARLIER TAHSIL KHURAI,
PRESENT TAHSIL MALTHON, DISTT.
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. COLLECTOR SAGAR FOR STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 6 AND SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.7/STATE)
This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard.
2. This Civil Revision has been filed by the applicants being
aggrieved by order dated 24/2/2020 passed by IIIrd Additional District
Judge, Sagar, Distt. Sagar in MCA/48/2018, arising out of order dated
16/5/2014 passed by Vth Civil Judge, Class-I, Sagar.
3. The relevant fact, to decide the civil revision, in brief, are that
Original plaintiff Sone Ju has filed suit for seeking the relief of
declaration of title and injunction in 1979. In 1981, trial court dismissed
the suit. In 1989 - The first appellate court remanded the matter back to
the trial court for deciding the same afresh after permitting plaintiff to
implead the State as a party. In 1989, MA 142/1989 was filed before this
Court challenging the aforesaid order of first appellate court and record
was transmitted to this Court. Vide order dated 28/2/1995 this Court
affirmed the order dated 11/3/1989 of first appellate court and sent back
the record to the trial Court to proceed further in accordance with
judgment and decree of the first appellate Court after impleading the
Government of Madhya Pradesh as a party to the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned
order suffers from material irregularity and illegality. The chronological
events would reveal that after decision of the MA no.142/1989, on
28/2/1995 by this Court, the original plaintiff expired on 10/2/1997. But,
the appellants failed to inform the Trial Court about the same, the
applicants for the first time become aware of the instant lis sometime in
the year 2013. Immediately, thereafter application for setting aside
abatement and substitution was filed. It is apparent that the applicants are
hardly literate and unaware of technicalities of law. The trial Court and
appellate court have taken pedantic and hyper technical approach and
refused to set aside abatement of the suit. The trial Court has lost of sight
of the fact that till 14/2/2014 matter remained pending before the Trial
Court for want of records. Thus, in fact the delay in filing applications
for setting aside abatement and substitution are bona fide. For this very
reason, the fact that the applicants appeared as witness in suit become
irrelevant. Findings are perverse given by the Courts below warrants
interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Perusal of the record shows that the application under order 22
Rule 9 CPC and section 5 of limitation Act filed by the present applicants
before the trial Court on 25/3/2014 on the ground that applicants are
illiterate persons and the record received recently. In March 2014, they
have got the information of lis from their mother Sone Ju, but no
application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC as revealed from the record.
8. In the said application, it is mentioned that the applicants are totally
illiterate. In this petition, it is stated that they are hardly literate.
Moreover, the applicants stated to receive the information regarding
present lis from their mother Sone Ju, in 2014 while in present petition, it
is stated that the information of lis was obtained by present applicants in
2013.
9. Since 1997 when the original plaintiff was died, this application
filed in 2014 after a lapse of around 18 years. It was incumbent on the
present applicants to submit sufficient cause for such long, enormous and
inordinate delay but they failed to do so, the unavailability of record is
not a bar in filing such application. This application may conveniently be
filed in the Trial Court stating that though the record is not available but
since the plaintiff has died, therefore, the application be taken on record.
But, no such exercise on behalf of the plaintiff seems. It is also pertinent
to mention here that applicant Pyare Ju being aged 65 years old and other
applicants are also being aged more than 30-35 years old it is not seem to
be natural that they couldn't have the knowledge of suit filed by their
father. As per the version of present applicants, original plaintiff was died
in 1997, after 2 years of passing the order of this court in 1995.
Therefore, that period was not seems to be insufficient to intimate the
trial Court by original plaintiff regarding the order of this court.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in my considered
opinion, the impugned order passed by learned Courts below does not
suffer from any irregularity, illegality and does not warrant any
interference.
11. Resultantly, this civil revision is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
m/-
