Khalil Ahmed vs Smt. Sushila Devi Tahilramani
2024 Latest Caselaw 16463 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Khalil Ahmed vs Smt. Sushila Devi Tahilramani on 31 May, 2024

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                                                  ON THE 31 st OF MAY, 2024
                                             REVIEW PETITION No. 469 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          KHALIL AHMED S/O LATE SHRI RAFIQ AHMED, AGED
                          ABOUT    50  YEARS, R / O 90 PRINCE COLONY
                          NIYAMATURA SHAHJAHANABAD BHOPAL (M.P.)
                          COMMERCIAL ADDRESS BHOPAL ENTERPRISES SHAH
                          BUILDING SHOP NO 3 HAMEEDIYA ROAD BHOPAL
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI RIYAZ MOHAMMAD - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          SMT. SUSHILA DEVI TAHILRAMANI W/O LATE
                          SUNDERLAL TAHILRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
                          R/O 51-A ALKPURI B.H.E.L. BHOPAL (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI N.S.RUPRAH- ADVOCATE )

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                              ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this court had dismissed the appeal without framing of substantial question of law. He submits that application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was pending but, this Court has not decided the application and if that application is considered, the scenario would have been changed. Lastly, he submits that it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his pleadings by deposing before the trial Court himself and in this case before the trial Court his power of attorney holder has deposed and on

that basis,he has prayed that the review petition be allowed and order passed on 02-04-2024, in SA No. 190/2016 be recalled and the case be decided after considering the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this court has affirmed the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. No error apparent on the face of record has been shown hence, it does not come in the purview of review.

Perused the order of this Court dated 02-04-2024 passed in Second Appeal No. 190/2016 which is preferred being aggrieved of the order of concurrent finding passed by the judgment of the 13th Additional District

Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 5-A/2015 dated 11-12-2015, the first Appellate Court has affirmed the decree passed by the 18th Civil Judge, Class- I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2005 dated 31-10-2005.

From the record, it is clear that the suit was filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent, disclaimer of title and non-user of the tenanted premises.

On admission stage, this Court by the impugned order has not found any substantial question of law and hence, dismissed the appeal in limine and the pending IAs were closed and appellant failed to show any error apparent on the face of record, hence, no case for review is made out.

The review petition is dismissed without calling of records.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE PG