Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Jaiswal vs Dev Ram Janki Mandir Badiawala on 25 April, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 SA-2943-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
SA No. 2943 of 2024
(VIJAY JAISWAL Vs DEV RAM JANKI MANDIR BADIAWALA )
Dated : 25-04-2025
Shri Siddharth Gulatee - Senior Advocate with Shri D. K. Sharma -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Shashank Shekhar - Senior Advocate with Shri Vikalp Soni -
Advocate for the respondent.
In Regular Civil Suit No.17-A/2010 (Dev Ram Janki Mandir
Badiawala through its Sarvharakar, Mahant Yangeshwar Das vs. Vijay
Jaiswal) vide judgment and decree dated 29/06/2022 learned Second Civil
Judge Senior Division, Pipariya District Narmadapuram decreed the suit
which was filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of vacant possession of the suit
property along with recovery of arrears of balance rent and mesne profit.
This is an admitted fact between the parties that Dev Ramjanki Mandir is a
legal identity registered under the Public Trust Act and defendant is tenant of
the suit property.
On an appeal being preferred by the defendant, learned Second District
Judge Pipariya in Civil Appeal No.12/2022 vide judgement and decree dated
03/08/2024 dismissed the same. Hence, this second appeal before this Court
by the defendant.
At the outset, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the
suit was filed by the Public Trust through its Sarvharakar Mahant
Yangeshwar Das but in this second appeal, he has impleaded Receiver
2 SA-2943-2024
Tahsildar Pipariya District Narmadapuram, as the suit property is now under
the possession of the Tahsildar, although he has very fairly admitted that in
First Appeal, he had impleaded the Public Trust Temple through its
Sarvharakar Mahant Yangeshwar Das. It is further submitted by him that the
judgment of learned First Appellate Court was delivered on 03/08/2024 and
the Tahsildar, Pipariya was appointed as a Receiver by the Registrar, Public
Trust on 23/08/2024, therefore, he has been impleaded.
Heard on I.A.No.96/2025, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of
CPC filed by the respondent for adding the party.
Normally, in Second Appeal at the time of admission respondent is not
heard, but in the facts and circumstances of the case as in midway of the
litigation, parties have been changed, respondent is also be heard.
Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the order
dated 18/10/2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.2456 of 2024, in which the dispute was of same nature, wherein the
learned writ Court had issued notices to the respondents and an order of
status quo has been passed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, I.A.No.96/2025 is allowed. "Dev Ramjanki
Mandir, through its Sarvharakar, Mahant Yangeshwar Das, Guru Late Shri
Mahant Sukhram Das Ji Maharaj, is directed to be impleaded as a
respondent.
Let necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that warrant of
3 SA-2943-2024
attachment has already been issued.
Normally, when there is an order of status quo, warrant of attachment
should not be issued, but at this juncture both the learned counsel clarified
that W.A.No.2456 of 2024 is basically regarding appointment of a receiver
and not related with obtaining of possession of the suit property.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is
having certified copy of the warrant of attachment, although he has not filed
the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no definite
information but something is going on, however he undertakes that he will
not press for warrant of attachment regarding the suit shop till next date of
hearing.
Therefore, case is adjourned.
List the case for arguments on admission on 30/04/2025.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
