Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ishraji Bai vs Late Krishnadevi Through Her Lrs. ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
1 MP-5018-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5018 of 2024
SMT. ISHRAJI BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
LATE KRISHNADEVI THROUGH HER LRS. SHIVCHARN AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramakant Awasthi - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri D.K. Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri S.K. Jain - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
The petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the
First District Judge, Harda District Harda (M.P.) in MJC No. 78 of 2023
whereby the application under Order 47 read with Section 115 of CPC filed
by the petitioners has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case, in substance, are that the plaintiff Nathulal (since
dead) filed a civil suit for specific performance of sale deeds dated
25.02.1981 and 01.05.1981 before the Additional District Judge, Harda who
passed the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1999 in favour of the defendant
Smt. Krishna Devi (since dead). Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal
being FA No. 402 of 1999 before this Court which passed an interim order
and the execution proceedings were stayed but the appeal was dismissed as
abated vide order dated 29.08.2022. Accordingly, the execution proceedings
were restarted. During pendency of the first appeal, on 25.11.2013, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
2 MP-5018-2024
plaintiff Nathulal died but unfortunately an application for bringing LRs on
record has not been filed. Thereafter, an SLP has been preferred which came
to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
3. It is submitted that the respondents have moved two applications under
Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC and Order 22 Rule 4 read
with Section 151 of CPC for bringing legal heirs of deceased defendant Smt.
Krishna Devi on record. The same were objected to by the petitioners.
However, the learned Court below has allowed the respondents' application
vide impugned order dated 31.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an
application under Order 47 read with Section 115 of CPC for review but the
same was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated
02.07.2024. Hence, this petition.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that order impugned has been
passed without appreciating the correct facts of the matter and in a cryptic
manner. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned
order and has prayed for dismissal of the petition as the same has been
passed on due consideration of facts and law.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute with the fact that both the judgment debtor and
decree holder have expired. The first appeal being FA No. 402 of 1999
which was filed by the original plaintiff i.e. Nathulal was dismissed as abated
by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2022. The SLP (Civil) Diary No. 32288
of 2024 filed against the same has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
3 MP-5018-2024
Supreme Court on the ground of delay vide order dated 14.08.2024. The
legal representatives of decree holder i.e. Smt. Krishna Devi have already
been brought on record on 21.06.2023 as is reflected from order dated
31.05.2024 whereby the application of the petitioner under Article 120 of the
Limitation Act has been rejected. It is well settled that the limitation period
prescribed by the Limitation Act does not apply to the execution
proceedings, allowing the legal representatives to be substituted and continue
the execution petition.
8. The learned Court below while dismissing the application filed by the
LRs of plaintiff under Order 47 read with Section 115 of CPC has observed
as under :
उ लेखनीय है क धारा-115 य० ०सं० के अंतगत पुनर ण का
अिधकार उ च यायालय को है ना क इस यायालय को। इसका
उ लेख प तौर पर धारा 115 (1) म उ लेख है जसके अनुसार
उ च यायालय कसी भी ऐसे मामले के अिभलेख को मंगवा सकेगा
जसका ऐसे उ च यायालय के अधीन थ कसी यायालय ने
विन य कया है और जसक कोई भी अपील नह ं होती। पूव
वाद के वारसान क. 1 से 6 के ारा तुत आवेदन इस यायालय
म तुत कये जाने हे तु वैधािनक नह ं है । फलतः वाद वचार
तुत आवेदन िनर त कया जाता है ।
9. The impugned order when tested on the given facts of the case cannot
be faulted with. In view of the above, this Court finds no good ground to
interfere with the well-reasoned order.
10. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra Shankar Patil,
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that the High Court in exercise of its
power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or
fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20317
4 MP-5018-2024
subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High Court can exercise this power
when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and
courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure
of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. The
learned Court below, in the considered opinion of this Court, has taken a
plausible view which does not require any interference.
11. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
