Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Chandra vs Harvansh Lal on 2 January, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 3738 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1. MUKESH CHANDRA, S/O LATE MOOLCHAND
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESSMAN, R/O. 11TH LINE ITARSI,
DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
2. DINESH CHANDRA, S/O ANANDI LAL, AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. 11TH L I N E ITARSI, DISTRICT-
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. HARVANSH LAL S/O LATE SHRI KARTAR SINGH
ARORA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
GANDHI NAGAR, ITARSI, TEHSIL ITARSI,
DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (M.P.), PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT IN FRONT OF RAILWAY STATION,
RAJNEET HOTEL, RAIPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH).
2A. RANJEET SINGH ARORA S/O HARVANSHLAL
AR OR A R/O HOTEL RANJEET, STATION ROAD,
RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH).
2B. JITENDRA SINGH ARORA S/O HARVANSHLAL
AR OR A R/O HOTEL RANJEET, STATION ROAD,
RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH).
3. RAKESH KUMAR S/O LATE MOOLCHAND JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 11TH LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
4. SMT. RAMKHUMAN W/O KANTILAL BODHRA D/O
LATE MOOLCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
TIKARAM CHIKANE
Signing time: 04-01-2024
10:31:39
2
(MADHYA PRADESH).
5. SMT. RENUKA W/O RAMESH CHANDRA JHAKAD
D/O LATE MOOLCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 40
YE A R S , R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI DISTRICT-
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
6. SMT. ANURADHA W/O DINESH CHANDRA D/O
LATE MOOLCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH).
7. SMT. GAJRA BAI W/O LATE ANANDI LAL, AGED
ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
8. RAMESH CHAND JAIN S/O LATE AN AN D I LAL,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
9. SURESH KUMAR S/O LATE ANANDI LAL, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
10. MAHESH KUMAR S/O LATE ANANDI LAL, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
11. RAJESH KUMAR S/O LATE ANANDI LAL, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI
DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
12. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O ANANDI LAL, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, R/O 11TH LINE ITARSI DISTRICT-
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
13. SMT. SUSHILA W/O RAJKUMAR JAIN D/O ANANDI
LAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 11 LAD COLONY
INDORE TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH).
14. SMT. URMILA W/O NARENDRA KUMAR
KOTHARI, D/O ANANDI LAL, AGED ABOUT 66
Y E A R S , R/O BHARUCHABADA, DISTRICT
AMRAVATI (MAHARASHTRA).
15. SMT. SHOBHA, W/O DINESH KUMAR JAIN D/O
ANANDI LAL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O VIMAL
BUILDING, INDORE TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
TIKARAM CHIKANE
Signing time: 04-01-2024
10:31:39
3
16. SEMSON D/O LATE CHHUTTU, AGED ABOUT 64
YEARS, RESIDENT OF 26 COMPETITION COLONY,
MAIN RANGWADI ROAD, KOTA TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT KOTA (RAJASTHAN).
17. DHARMA S/O LATE BHURE LAL YADAV R/O.
KHEDA ITARSI, T E H S I L ITARSI, DISTRICT-
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
18. DHANUSHRAM S/O LATE BHURE LAL YADAV,
RESIDENT OF KHEDA ITARSI TEHSIL ITARSI,
DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH).
19. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI IMTIAZ HUSSAIN - SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI
MOHD. QASIM, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Counsel for the petitioner/defendants No.1 and 10 is present and filed
this petition challenging the order of trial Court dated 16.07.2018 and
17.08.2017.
2. The facts of this case are like this that the plaintiffs filed a suit for
declaration and affirmation of possession and sought for declaration of
judgment and decree as null and void in R.C.S. No.03-A/2013. While pending
the suit, the plaintiff filed a application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend
the plaint for the limited extend and the same was dismissed by the trial Court.
Challenging the order of trial Court filed W.P. No.16234/2011 and this Court
allowed the writ petition and permitting the trial Court to amend the plaint and
thereafter, the plaintiffs filed another application under Order 13 Rule 10 of
CPC and the same was allowed by the trial Court basing on the orders passed
by this Court order in W.P. No.16234/2011.
3. At this juncture, the parties filed documents and lead evidence in
contrary to additional issue framed on 04.12.2015. Counsel for the defendants
restricted to lead the evidence beyond the scope of additional issue inspite of
the trial Court objected, they exceeds evidence defendants filed application
under Section 151 of C.P.C. with a request to restrict the evidence of witnesses
contrary to additional issue and to close the right to adduce further evidence.
Trial Court dismisses the application. Challenging the order of trial Court filed
this present petition.
4. The matter came up for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner
prays for withdrawal of the petition seeking the liberty to raise objections which
were taken in this petition before the trial Court. The submissions made by
learned counsel for petitioner/defendants recorded the same. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise the objections which
were taken in this petition before the trial Court and further directed the trial to
restrict the plaintiffs if they exceeds the evidence beyond the scope of
additional issue.
5. With such liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE
RC
