Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Singh Sengar & Ors vs Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors on 27 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 563 of 2002
BETWEEN:-
BHOPAL SINGH S/O DEVI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED
THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS)
1. SANJAY SINGH SENGAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O
LATE BHOPAL SINGH, R/O ADARSH COLONY, POLICE
LINES, SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2 . SANDEEP SINGH AGED 33 YEARS, S/O BHOPAL
SINGH, OCCUPATION-WHOLE SELLER OF MEDICINES,
R/O NEAR BUS STAND, SINGRAULI, POST SIGNRAULI,,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MP)
3. MADHUA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D/O
BHOPAL SINGH, W/O UPENDRA SINGH BISEN, R/O
STATE BANK COLONY, SATNA (MP)
4. KUMUD SINGH D/O BHOPAL SINGH, AGED 42 YEARS,
W/O SHRI ARJUN SINGH, R/O 181-B, ADARSH NAGAR,
AJMER (RAJASTHAN)
5 . MANJU SINGH, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O GYANENDRA
SINGH CHANDEL, OCCUPATION- GYAN PHARMA
GENERAL AGENCIES, ASPATAL CHOURAHA, TAHSIL &
POST DISTRICT SIDHI (MP)
6. SMT.RAJABETI SINGH, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O BHOPAL
SINGH, R/O NEAR POLICE LINES, ADARSH COLONY,
TAHSIL SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MP)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MS.MALTI DADARIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. LALITA DEVI AGED 52 YEARS, W/O SHRI
RAJKISHORE BRAHMAN,
2. ASHISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,L S/O SHRI
RAJKISHORE LBRAHMAN,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 27-05-2024
19:43:15
2
3. SMT.YASHODA BAI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O
RAJKISHORE BRAHMAN,
4. DAU @ SHRAVAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O RAJKISHORE BRAHMAN,
5. RAKESH KUMAR (DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER)
ALL RESIDENTS OF IN FRONT OF DISTRICT HOSPITAL,
SHAHDOL, TAHSIL SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MP)
6. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR, SHAHDOL, (MP)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 BY SHRI RAHUL DIWAKAR - ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.6/STATE BY SHRI TEEKARAM KURMI - PANEL
LAWYER)
Reserved on : 28.2.2024
Pronounced on : 27.5.2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs against the order dated
09.10.2000 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Shahdol in MJC
No.04/1998 [Bhopal Singh and another Vs. Smt.Lalita Devi and others]
dismissing the appeal filed appellants and affirming the order dated 01/2-5-1998
passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Shahdol in Civil Suit No.8-A/1998 whereby
the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit against the
respondents/defendants seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in
respect of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 1789, 1790, 1791 & 1820, total
admeasuring 0.49 acres situated in village Sohagpur, District Shahdol. The said
civil suit was dismissed by the trial Court under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC on
02.5.1998. The counter claim was also dismissed by the trial Court. The
appellants preferred an appeal before the first appellate court, which too has
been dismissed.
3. Initially, a civil revision was filed before this Court by the
appellants but subsequently the same was directed to be converted into Second
Appeal under section 100 CPC. The appeal was heard on admission and on
23.3.2004 was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of
law:-
"Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit filed by
the plaintiff/appellant vide order dated 01/5/1998"
4. Arguments have been heard. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that order of the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Shahdol in dismissing
the suit under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC was not correct and the learned First
Additional District Judge, Shahdol should have corrected the same and allowed
the appeal. It is also submitted that her that the orders passed by the both the
courts be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial Court for
adjudication on merits.
5 . While learned counsel for the respondents has supported the
order passed by the two courts below and claimed dismissal of this appeal. He
has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Vishal Vaskel Vs. Mangu
(Second Appeal No.875/2013 decided on 03.4.2014) reported in 2014 SCC
Online MP 4157 and referred to the observations made in paragraph 17 of the
decision wherein it has been held as under:-
"1 7 . However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-
availability because of professional work in other court or
elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer
or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he
represents must then make alternative arrangement well in
advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three
adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past
conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an
important circumstance which the courts must keep in view
whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is
not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure
and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by
it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit whether
plaintiff or defendant must cooperate with the court in ensuring the
effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been
fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril."
6. Having hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records of both the courts including the impugned orders as also appreciated
the instant case in the light of decision in Vishal Vaskel (surpa) , this Court is
of the considered view that the civil suit was rightly and legally dismissed by the
learned trial Court. Ample opportunities were given to appellants but on one
pretext or the other they wanted to drag on the suit. Learned first appellate
Court has considered all legal and factual circumstances of the case. Both the
courts have arrived at findings on meticulous appreciation of material available
on record.
7. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered
in negative and against the appellants. In the result, the appeal being sans merit
stands dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith records of trial Court as
well as first appellate Court, if any received, be sent back to the concerned
courts.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
