Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Savita D/O Badrilalji Lahoti W/O ... vs Mohammad Yunus on 14 May, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12702
1 MP-6751-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6751 of 2024
SMT. SAVITA D/O BADRILALJI LAHOTI W/O SATISHCHANDRA JI
JHANWAR THORUGH POWER ATTORNEY SHRI SATISHCH
Versus
MOHAMMAD YUNUS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mohd Sohail Chhipa, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to
4.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned GA for the respondent no.6/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India challenging the order dated 13.11.2024 by which the applications
filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rules 17 of C.P.C. and Order 1
Rule 10 of C.P.C. has been dismissed. The petitioner has filed the suit for
specific performance of the contract. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid
applications after filing of certain documents vide Annexure-P/9 on
23.09.2024 and the applications were filed on 15.10.2024. The aforesaid
applications were filed on the ground that the suit was sold by the respondent
nos.3 and 4 to private parties.
2. Counsel for the respondents argued that the aforesaid fact were
specifically pleaded in the WS and the petitioners were well aware of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12702
2 MP-6751-2024
same since year 2019 but no application was filed. He said that by the
applications Annexure-P/9, only certified copy of the documents were filed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid application
were filed only after the documents were filed which may clear that the
transactions were made only in respect of the property involved in the
petition which necessitate the filing of the applications. The court has
committed an error while dismissing the aforesaid applications which would
highly prejudice to the petitioner's suit for specific performance of the
contract.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record this court finds that the suit is filed for specific performance of the
contract and in the case of dismissal of the applications, the same may highly
prejudice the plaintiff's suit. It is true that the aforesaid facts were pleaded in
the WS but this is also undisputed that the documents related to the aforesaid
transactions were filed by the defendant vide Annexure-P/9 on 23.09.2024 at
the time of defendant's evidence and the evidence is recorded and the case is
fixed for final arguments. By order dated 09.04.2025 this court passed an
interim order directing the trial court not to pronounce without leave of this
court.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. Manohar
Singh and Ors. reported in 2006 (6) SCC 498, Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs.
Roop Rani Mehra reported in 2018 (2) SCC 132, Chakreshwari Construction
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoharlal reported in 2017 (3) MPLJ (SC) 717, Kanakmal
S/o Basantilal and Ors. Vs. Nighat Jahan and Ors. reported in 2019 (3) MPLJ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12702
3 MP-6751-2024
292 it has held that the liberal approach has to be adopted in such cases
unless prejudice was caused to the other side.
6. In the light of the aforesaid judgment this court finds that if the
applications are not allowed the case of the plaintiff would be highly
prejudiced and by allowing the applications no prejudice would be caused to
the defendants. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside
and the applications are allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) to the defendants.
7. The trial court shall issue notices to the respondents on payment of
P.F. by the plaintiff and will proceed for the trial thereafter.
8. Considering the fact that the suit is pending since 2019, the parties
are directed not to seek un-necessary adjournment in the matter and to
cooperate in the trial and the trial court is directed to make all endeavor to
conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within six months from the
date of filing the certified copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ajit
