Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saket Kumar Kori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28292
1 WP-21307-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21307 of 2025
SAKET KUMAR KORI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket K.Kori - Petitioner present in person.
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated
25.04.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 in
Civil Appeal No.32-A/2023 has been rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff has filed civil suit for
declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the disputed property
bearing Khasra No.711/3/Da/ area 0.032 Hectare situated at Village Anuppur
and to declare the sale deed dated 21.03.2014 as null and void. The
petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and has also filed a
counter-claim. Both were analogously decided by a common judgment and
decree dated 13.12.2022 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs were
dismissed and the counter claim filed by the petitioner herein was allowed,
subject to the condition that petitioner/defendant No.1 is required to deposit
an amount of Rs.94,000/- towards the Court fees and thereafter the decree
will come into force. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28292
2 WP-21307-2025
Appellate Court being Regular Civil Appeal No.32-A/2023. The
petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed application dated 24.11.2023 seeking
dismissal of the appeal. The learned Appellate Court after considering all the
aspects of the matter has dismissed the application filed by the defendant
No.1.
3. It is pointed out by the petitioner that no appeal could have been filed
assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by the
original plaintiff/private respondent herein as the decree has not come into
force. In the present case, the condition mentioned in the judgment and
decree has not complied with by the petitioner and, therefore, no decree shall
come into force until and unless the Court fees of Rs.94,000/- is deposited.
He filed an application before the learned Appellate Court on the ground that
as the conditions mentioned in the judgment and decree are not complied
with, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. He preferred a
petition before this Court being Misc. Petition No.5451/2023 which was
disposed off vide order dated 25.03.2025 wherein it is observed that if the
amount of Rs.94,000/- towards Court fees is deposited then the decree will
come into force. Until and unless the said amount is not deposited towards
Court fees, the decree is not executable then under such circumstances, the
appeal is not maintainable. The learned Appellate Court considered the
application filed by the petitioner and in view of the directions given in M.P.
No.5451/2023 to consider the objections filed by the petitioner, the said
application was taken up by the learned Appellate Court for consideration
and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 25.04.2025. Hence,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28292
3 WP-21307-2025
this petition.
4. Heard the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The fact remains that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed
and the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 was allowed. Once the
civil suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed then the plaintiff has every right
to file an appeal against the judgment and decree dismissing the civil suit and
allowing the counter claim. The learned Appellate Court took note of the
aforesaid aspect as well as considered the provisions mentioned under
Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure wherein it is mentioned that under
what circumstances the appeal can be filed. The learned Appellate Court also
considered the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The
learned Trial Court held that while deciding the civil suit it was found that
there is a deficit Court fees of Rs.95,000/- out of which Rs.1,000/- was
deposited towards Court fees in the counter claim, accordingly it was
directed to furnish the Court fees of Rs.94,000/- and on depositing the Court
fees of Rs.94,000/-, the decree will come into force. The said amount of
Court fees was not being deposited by the petitioner and he preferred an
application raising the objection with respect of the maintainability of the
appeal filed by the plaintiff. As the judgment and decree is directly affecting
the plaintiff, he is having every right to prefer a first appeal challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the civil
suit. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner raising objections on
maintainability was rejected. The learned Appellate Court has passed a well
reasoned order, while rejecting the application. There is no illegality
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28292
4 WP-21307-2025
committed by the learned Appellate Court in rejecting the said application.
6. The relief which has been claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition
is for quashment of the impugned order as well as to take appropriate action
against the concerning District Judge for passing an order contrary to law.
He has also made application to the police authorities but when they have not
taken any action, he has prayed to place the concerning S.H.O., Police
Station Anuppur under suspension. Other reliefs are also claimed in the writ
petition. The fact remains that if an order is passed by the concerning Judge
deciding an application, it may be a wrong order but that does not give any
right to the petitioner to claim relief for taking legal action against the
concerning Judge. The entire petition does not speak of any malafic action
being taken by the concerning Judge, therefore, such relief cannot be
extended to the petitioner. As far as directions to place the concerning
S.H.O. under suspension is concerned, the petitioner is virtually aggrieved by
the order passed by the learned Appellate Court rejecting the application.
This petition has been filed in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned
order passed by the learned Appellate Court and examine the matter in
accordance with law. Once, this Court has already held that the learned
Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner, no other relief can be extended to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petition sans merit and is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28292
5 WP-21307-2025
AM
