Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Anand vs Smt. Anees Daud on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15995
1 MP-886-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 30th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 886 of 2017
MANISH ANAND
Versus
SMT. ANEES DAUD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sumant Msihra - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief :
"The petitioner/defendant respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the
impugned order dated 19-09-14(Ann.P/1) and also may
kindly be pleased to allow petitioners'/defendants'
application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) C.P.C. (Annexure
A-4). Any other suitable writ order or direction for
doing justice in the matter may kindly be issued. Cost of
the petition may kindly be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the
petitioner/defendant had filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC
along with a copy of the judgment passed in Civil Suit No. 11-A/14 (Shakeel
Daud vs. Ashok Agrawal & Another). The said judgment was passed on
08.02.2016 by the Third Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior. However, learned
Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the relevance of the
document vis a vis controversy involved in the present case has not been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15995
2 MP-886-2017
established. It is submitted that the present application was filed along with
the said document to establish the conduct of the plaintiff. The learned Trial
Court erred in dismissing the application.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/plaintiff has submitted that, since the relevancy of the document
in question has not been established, the application has rightly been
dismissed. It is further submitted that the eviction suit has been filed on the
grounds mentioned under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(d) of the M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and that no issue regarding the
availability of alternate accommodation with the plaintiff/landlord arises in
the present case. By filing this document, the defendant intends to prove that
the additional accommodation is available with the plaintiffs. However, the
present suit has not been filed on the grounds mentioned under Sections
12(1)(e) or 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
Therefore, the availability of alternate accommodation with the plaintiff is
not relevant consideration in this case.
4 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. Keeping in view the copy of the plaint (Annexure P-2), it reveals
that the eviction suit has been filed on the grounds mentioned in Sections
12(1)(a) and 12(1)(d) of the Act, but this suit has not been filed on the
grounds under Sections 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(f) of the Act. The question of
alternative accommodation available with the plaintiff would arise if the
eviction suit was filed on the grounds mentioned in Sections 12(1)(e) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15995
3 MP-886-2017
12(1)(f) of the Act. However, since the present suit has not been filed on
these grounds, this document is not relevant for the just decision of the
present case. As far as the conduct of the plaintiff/landlord is concerned, it
cannot be established through this document. Learned counsel for the
petitioner was unable to point out what conduct revealed from the document
indicating the conduct of the plaintiff/landlord which is relevant in this
case. Therefore, no case is made out warranting interference with the
impugned order.
6 . Accordingly, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Aman
