Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pradeep Kumar Gupta vs Mukesh Gupta on 1 May, 2025

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20639




                                                                      1                                      MP-2158-2025
                              IN         THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                              BEFORE
                                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                           ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
                                                      MISC. PETITION No. 2158 of 2025
                                                          PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA
                                                                  Versus
                                                         MUKESH GUPTA AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                              Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta - Advocate for petitioner.

                                                                      ORDER

Assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the 29 th Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Jabalpur in R.C.S.A No.839 of 2020 whereby an application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 for depositing the rent of the suit property in the court has been rejected, the present petition is filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating the he is the owner of the suit house by way of a Will dated 19.12.2013 executed by his father and he along with his family continuously residing in the suit house after death of his father. When the petitioner/defendant No.1 has refused his ownership in the suit

house and creating nuisance, he has filed the instant suit. The respondent/defendant No.1 has denied the plaint averments and pleaded that he is the owner of the disputed house. He has purchased the suit house on 08.01.1991 by a registered sale-deed. The Will produced by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is false and fabricated. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has given three shops on rent and is receiving more than Rs.25,000/- per month as rent. Hence, the petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed an application praying that the monthly rent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20639

2 MP-2158-2025 may directed to be deposited before the court till pendency of the civil suit. The learned court below has dismissed the said application, therefore, the present petition has been filed.

3. It is argued by the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent No.1 both are real brothers and the respondent No.1/plaintiff has taken illegal possession of the suit house and filed the civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit house which are having three shops have been given on rent by the plaintiff and he is receiving Rs.25,000/- per month as a rent. Therefore, the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application for deposition of the rent before the Court till the suit is finally decided, however, the learned court below without appreciating the fact that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is legal and absolute owner of the suit property as he has purchased the suit property by a registered sale-deed,

has rejected the application. Therefore, a prayer for quashment of the impugned order is made.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record

5. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants on the basis of a Will executed by his father in his favour, whereas the defendants claim the suit house on the basis of the registered sale-deed. As to who is the actual owner of the suit house is yet to be decided by leading evidence. The suit is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. The petitioner has not filed any document to show the actual amount of rent or names of the tenants nor there is any rent agreement to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the court below has rightly arrived at a conclusion that as to who is entitled to receive the rent amount can be decided after consideration of evidence and if it is found that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive such amount, then an order in favour of the defendants can

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20639

3 MP-2158-2025 be passed at the time of final judgment and has rightly rejected the application being not maintainable at this stage.

6. Even otherwise, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having supervisory jurisdiction and limited scope of interference as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein certain guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court, which are as under:-

"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner."

7. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), no case for interference is made out. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the present petition.

8. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE