Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankarlal vs Hemant Kumar Mathur on 26 August, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19355
1 CR-26-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 26 of 2016
SHANKARLAL
Versus
HEMANT KUMAR MATHUR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri B.S. Dhakad - Advocates for respondent No.1.
Shri Rahul Jha - Proxy counsel on behalf of Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for
respondent No.2.
ORDER
Heard through video conferencing.
2 . The revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation
Control Act has been filed against the orders dated 19-11-2015, 23-11-2015
and 26-11-2015 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, in
Execution Case No. 9/02-03/90-7 x 2015 (Execution).
3. This revision has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"(a) the impugned order 19.11.2015 and the impugned
order dated 23.11.2015 as well as the impugned order
dated 26.11.2015 passed by the Learned Rent
Controlling Authority, Gwalior (presided by Shri Mahip
Tejsavi - Respondent No. 2) in Execution Case No.
9/02-03/90-7 x 2015 Execution (Hemant Kumar Mathur
-Vs- Shankar Lal), may kindly be ordered to be set
aside.
(b) The petitioner further prays that since the aforesaid
impugned orders have been passed by the respondent
No. 2 Shri Mahip Tejasvi as a Presiding Officer of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19355
2 CR-26-2016
said Court in the said Execution Case No. 9/2002-
03/90-7 x 2015 with corrupt motive in connivance with
the respondent. 1/decree-holder in order to unduly
favour him (the respondent No. 1/decree- holder
Hemant Kumar Mathur) totally ignoring and omitting
all the settled principles of law and settled norms as
well as the prescribed conditions which were essential
for the exercise of the statutory powers by him
(respondent No. 2 Mahip Tejasvi) therefore, in view of
tests laid down vide paragraph 5 of the judgment
delivered by three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court
Cases page 680 (Union of India and others -Vs-
Dulichand), a further direction may kindly be given to
the disciplinary authority of the respondent No. 2 Shri
Mahip Tejsavi - i.e. to the Principal Secretary of the
General Administration Department of Govt. of M.P. -
to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings against
the Presiding Officer namely Shri Mahip Tejsavi
(respondent No. 2 herein) forthwith in connection with
his aforesaid acts, omissions and mis-deeds, which
clearly amounts to 'misconduct', and after initiating
conducting such displinary proceedings against the
Presiding Officer namely Shri Mahip Tejsavi
(respondent No. 2 herein) to award adequate
punishment against him -- Presiding Officer Shri
Mahip Tejsavi (respondent No. 2 herein) in order
to achieve the faith of litigant pubic in the system.
(c) The petitioner further prays that the proceedings
rendered by the Nazir (respondent No. 3 -- Shri Sher
Singh Korkoo) in respect of delivering the possession of
the suit shop to the respondent No. 1/decree-holder after
breaking open its lock in the absence of and behind the
back of petitioner taking the Police help of Police guard
1+4 may kindly be declared be wholly illegal and void
being totally unauthorised and without jurisdiction and
as a result whereof, the possession of the suit shop be
redelivered to the petitioner/judgment- debtor alongwith
the goods found therein and given in the Supurdgi of the
respondent No. 1/ decree-holder, which is still in his
supurdgi.
(d) The petitioner further prays that since from the facts
and material on record, it is also clear that the Nazir
(respondent No. 3 Shri Sher Singh Korkoo) rendered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19355
3 CR-26-2016
the proceedings in respect of delivering the possession
of the suit shop to the respondent No. 1/decree-holder
in the absence and behind the back of the petitioner
after breaking open its lock and taking the Police help
of 1+4 police guard, in absolutely illegal, arbitrary and
unauthorised manner in connivance with the respondent
No. 1/decree-holder extending undue advantage to him,
and therefore the after declaring said proceedings
rendered by the Nazir Shri Sher Singh Korkoo
respondent No. 3 to be wholly illegal, void,
unauthorized, a further direction may kindly be given to
the disciplinary authority of the respondent No. 3 i.e. to
the Collector, Distt. Gwalior to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent No. 3 for his
aforesaid acts, omissions, misdeeds which clearly
amount to 'misconduct' and after conducting such
disciplinary proceedings, to impose
appropriate punishment on the respondent No. 3 also.
The petitioner further prays that a further direction may
kindly be given to the disciplinary authority of the
respondent No. 3 i.e. to the Collector, Distt. Gwalior to
place the respondent No. 3 Shri Sher Singh Korkoo
under suspension during the pendency of such
disciplinary proceedings.
(d) Any other such orders or directions which 'the
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, be also passed alongwith the
costs of this petition."
4. It is fairly conceded by counsel for the applicant that possession of
the suit premises has already been given to the landlord. It is also conceded
by counsel for the applicant that not only the order of eviction was passed by
the RCA, but the said order was also affirmed by the High Court in civil
revision and as well as in the review petition filed by the applicant.
5 . However, it is the case of the applicant that the applicant is
aggrieved by the illegal actions of the presiding officer and process server in
forcibly taking possession of the property in dispute, and accordingly this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19355
4 CR-26-2016
civil revision has been filed for the above-mentioned reliefs.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that once
the order of eviction has been executed and possession of the property has
been delivered back to the landlord, then the applicant is unnecessarily trying
to keep the lis pending for his self-satisfaction and with mala fide intention.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Admittedly, the applicant was a tenant who suffered an order of
eviction which was affirmed by the High Court, and now possession has also
been handed over to the landlord in the execution proceedings.
9. It appears that now the applicant is intending to work further with
mala fide intentions to some how nullify the execution proceedings. Since
the order of eviction has already been affirmed by the High Court in civil
revision as well as in the review petition filed by the applicant, therefore, no
useful purpose would be served by restoring back the possession of the suit
premises to the applicant with a direction to once again hand over the said
possession back to the landlord. Something which may be a self respect of a
person would be an egoistic attitude for the other persons.
10. Unless and until a substantive relief can be granted by this Court, it
would not be appropriate for this Court to consider and decide litigation only
for the academic purposes.
11. Furthermore, whether respondent No.2 was entitled for protection
under the Judges Protection Act or not has also not been addressed by
counsel for the applicant.
12. No useful purpose would be served by adjudicating upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19355
5 CR-26-2016
allegations made by the applicant which would necessarily require recording
of evidence. Furthermore, if the wild allegations made against the law
enforcing authorities as well as the judges are encouraged, then it will be
very easy for every litigant to involve himself in mudslinging, which cannot
be permitted, specifically in light of the provisions of the Judges Protection
Act.
13. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
14. This civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Aman
