Bhopal Municipal Corporation vs Ramchand
2024 Latest Caselaw 15229 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhopal Municipal Corporation vs Ramchand on 21 May, 2024

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

                                                             1                                SA-1394-2008
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                  ON THE 21 st OF MAY, 2024
                                              SECOND APPEAL No. 1394 of 2008

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    BHOPAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SADAR
                                 MANZIL,    BHOPAL,     THROUGH   ITS
                                 COMMISSIONER, (MADHYA PRADESH).

                           2.    COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                                 SADAR MANZIL, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI MANISH SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           RAMCHAND S/O SHRI SHEETAL DAS MOTWANI, AGED
                           ABOUT   57   YEARS, R/O RAJA COMPLEX 706,
                           LAKHERAPURA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY NONE INSPITE OF EARLIER REPRESNETATION)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

None for respondent inspite of earlier representation and presence as per order dated 15.3.2024. It is seen that sole respondent-Ramchand was represented on 15.3.2024 and, therefore, no fresh notice was required but learned Coordinate Bench has directed issuance of fresh notice. Therefore, process fee was paid but report has been received that "Addressee left".

2. From perusal of record it is seen that trial Court (3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal) vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2006 in Civil Suit No.46-

2 SA-1394-2008 A/2005 has held that plaintiff (Ramchand) is entitled to get possession on the basis of allotment order and lease deed but he had not paid the court fee and had not valued the suit property and the suit is time barred and dismissed the suit. The First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No.232/2006 (Ramchand Vs, Bhopal Municipal Corporation and another) vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.2008 decreed the suit and declared that the respondent is lease holder in respect of suit property being Survey No.713, area 2400 sq. ft. situated in a categorized market in Bhopal for a period of 30 years from 18.3.1983 and the defendants were directed to remove the encroachment and handover vacant possession to the plaintiff.

3. Therefore, it is seen that the period of lease, for which the appellate Court decreed has already expired on 17.3.2013. Therefore, no cause of action remains in this case and the appeal which was admitted on 15.3.2024 on the substantial questions of law whether the First Appellate Court has acted with material irregularity and overlooking the facts situation and lease deed and whether appeal was time barred, now remains only for academic purpose inasmuch as the appeal of the appellant/Municipal Corporation as also the cause of action in suit have rendered infructuous with lapse of time regarding enforcement of decree. Therefore, nothing remains in this appeal. Therefore, no purpose would be served in answering the substantial question of law.

4. Both the parties are free to agitate their grievances if new cause of action, if any, arose after 18.3.2013.

5. Accordingly, this appeal dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned courts alongwith their respective records, if any received.

3 SA-1394-2008

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE RM