Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahzad Khan vs Ramveer Singh Pal on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2066
1 SA-3162-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 30 th OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 3162 of 2024
SHAHZAD KHAN
Versus
RAMVEER SINGH PAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
22.11.2024 in RCA No.44/2022 by IV Additional District Judge, Guna dismissing
the civil appeal and judgment and decree dated 20.05.2022 passed by III Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Guna in RCS-A/2400203/2016 has been affirmed.
2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for declaration, recovery
of possession and mandatory injunction with respect to plot no.42 area 600 Sq.feet
of Survey No.776. In the same suit appellant/defendant has also filed counter
claim for declaration, possession and for mandatory injunction with respect to plot
no.47 area 25x40 sq.feet arising out of survey no.776 situated at Khajera Road,
Gulabganj, District Guna.
3. The learned trial Court framed as many as five issues relevant for
dealing with the controversy involved in the case. Based on pleading of the parties
and after affording opportunity of adducing evidence vide judgment and decree
dated 20.05.2022 decree the suit of plaintiff/respondent declaring him title holder
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2066
2 SA-3162-2024
of plot no.42 and also held that he is entitled for recovery of possession. Relief of
permanent injunction was also granted by the same judgment. The counter claim
filed by the appellant/defendant was dismissed. The learned trial Court has
strenuously dealt with the issue involved in the case for recording the aforesaid
findings. This judgment was assailed in RCA No.44/2022 before the IV
Additional District Judge, Guna who dismissing the appeal upheld the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts
below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. The
Commissioner report dated 24.09.2019 has not been rightly appreciated wherein it
has been found that construction of the appellant is 15-16 years old. The point of
limitation has also not been considered. Even application filed under Order 41
Rule 27 of CPC for placing additional evidence on record has been dismissed
without considering the fact that the document sale deed with regard to plot no.47
of the appellant was necessary for just decision of the case. He has further
submitted that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was also dismissed
without considering the fact of amendment which was necessary for arriving at
just adjudication of the controversy involved the case. To bolster his submission
learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148
and in the case of Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and others reported in (1974)
2 SCC 393.
5. From the perusal of the judgment of the Courts below it is manifest that
issues for determination of the controversy has rightly been framed and evidence
adduced has been appreciated properly. The plaintiff has filed sale deed Ex.P-6 to
prove his title over the disputed plot no.42. The appellant did not file any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2066
3 SA-3162-2024
document before the trial Court to prove his title for plot no.47. It has also been
held that there is no evidence to prove that plot nos.42 and 47 are on the same
land. The case of the appellant has also not been supported by the Commissioner
report Ex.P-10. The learned first appellate Court has properly appreciated the
evidence and after due appreciation and cogent reasons dismissed the application
filed on behalf of appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
6. In view of the peculiar factual matrix of the case, appellant will not get
any help from the judgment in the case of Union of India(Supra) which merely
declares the liability with regard to admissibility of additional evidence. Similarly
judgment with regard to allowing the amendment application at appellate stage
also does not help the appellant as they have not taken recourse of amendment at
right time.
7. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts.
Findings are not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record. This Court is not
obliged to re-appreciate or re-weigh the evidence in second appeal.
8. No substantial question of law is found involved. There is no
justification in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the
Courts below. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Van
