Madhya Pradesh High Court
Haribabu vs Smt. Savitri Devi on 10 November, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28460
1 MA-3974-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 10 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 3974 of 2018
HARIBABU
Versus
SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Singhal- learned Counsel for appellant- defendant No.1(b)-
Haribabu through VC.
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava- learned Counsel for legal representatives of
deceased - defendant No.3 Pratap Singh, namely, Mahendra Pal Singh and
Surendra Pal Singh.
Shri Nirmal Sharma- learned Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellant-defendant No.1(b),
Haribabu, assailing the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned
Second Additional District Judge, Bhind (hereinafter referred to as "the First
Appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.01 of 2016.
2. By the said order, the First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal
filed by the original plaintiff, Savitri Devi (since deceased), by setting aside the
findings of the Trial Court and remanding the matter to the Trial Court with a
direction to take on record the documents produced by the plaintiff under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC, permit both parties to lead additional and rebuttal evidence, and
thereafter decide the case afresh in accordance with law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28460
2 MA-3974-2018
3. In brief, the original plaintiff Savitri Devi filed a civil suit seeking
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land bearing
Survey No.59 (area 5.22 hectares) and Survey No.138 (area 1.25 hectares)
situated in Village Kachogra, District Bhind. It was pleaded that her father,
Gaurishankar, along with his brothers Gajadhar, Rameshwar, and Vishwanath,
were residents of Village Jamna, District Bhind, and that Gaurishankar had been
cultivating the aforesaid Government land for several years. After his death, the
said land was leased (patta) by the Government in favour of Mahadevi (mother of
the plaintiff), to the extent of 1/3rd share, and the remaining 2/3rd share was
leased to defendants No.2 and 3. After the death of Mahadevi, the plaintiff
continued to cultivate the land with the help of defendants No.2 and 3. It was
alleged that one Ramnaresh Sharma, son of Gajadhar (uncle of the plaintiff), who
was working as a clerk in the Tehsil Office, fraudulently got the property mutated
in his name in collusion with the Patwari and Gram Panchayat officials by
showing himself to be the legal heir of Mahadevi. On learning of this fraudulent
mutation, the plaintiff instituted the present suit and filed an application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction.
4.The appellant-defendant No.1(b) and defendant No.3 filed their written
statements, denying the plaintiff's claim. It was contended that the suit land was
Government land and that Gaurishankar never cultivated it. It was further pleaded
that after the death of Mahadevi, cultivation continued in the name of Ramnaresh
Sharma and thereafter in the names of his legal heirs--the present appellant
Haribabu and Mahesh Babu. It was also stated that Gaurishankar had declared
before the Sarpanch that after his death, the land should be mutated in favour of
Ramnaresh Sharma, and accordingly, mutation was done on 30.07.2003.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28460
3 MA-3974-2018
Therefore, the suit filed in 2013 was barred by limitation.
5. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff, being married and residing at Ashok
Nagar, was not in possession of the suit land. The defendants further contended
that Gaurishankar had three daughters, namely Sraddha, Sharda, and Savitri, and
thus the plaintiff alone could not claim exclusive rights over the property.
6. After framing issues and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial
Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to produce the
original lease deed (patta) or to prove her ownership.
7.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff
preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.01/2016 under Section 96 CPC. During
pendency of the appeal, she filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
seeking permission to produce additional documents, which were claimed to be
copies of Government records relating to the lease.
8. The appellant-defendant No.1(b) and defendant No.3 filed objections to
the said application, contending that the documents sought to be produced were of
the year 1992 and were being filed only to fill lacunae in the plaintiff's case.
9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, partly allowed the
appeal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to accept the
additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, permit both sides to lead
additional and rebuttal evidence, and then decide the suit afresh in accordance
with law.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1(b) submitted that the
First Appellate Court committed an error in remanding the matter without
considering the objections filed by the appellant. It was urged that the documents
sought to be produced were irrelevant and were filed only to cure deficiencies in
the plaintiff's evidence. It was also contended that since the mutation was done in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28460
4 MA-3974-2018
2003 and the suit was filed in 2013, the same was hopelessly barred by limitation.
It is further submitted that additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up
lacunae or to patch up a weak case. It was thus prayed that the impugned order of
remand be set aside.
11. None present for the legal representatives of respondent No.1- original
plaintiff (since deceased) even after service of notice.
12. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on
perusal of the record, it is evident from the plaint and written statements that the
existence of the lease (patta) granted in favour of Gaurishankar was not denied by
the defendants. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit merely for non-production
of the original lease deed. The First Appellate Court, while exercising powers
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, found that the documents now sought to be
produced are relevant for a just and fair decision of the matter and would assist the
Trial Court in determining the real issues of title and possession. The remand was
made only to provide both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence afresh.
13. The scope of interference under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC is limited.
Unless the order of remand is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or beyond
jurisdiction, this Court ordinarily does not interfere with such orders.
14. In the present case, the First Appellate Court has recorded cogent
reasons while admitting the additional documents and remanding the matter for a
fresh decision. The requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC have been duly
satisfied. It is a settled principle that where remand is made to ensure a complete
and fair adjudication, such orders should not be interfered with unless they result
in miscarriage of justice. Since both parties have been granted liberty to lead
evidence in support and rebuttal, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to
the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28460
5 MA-3974-2018
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality,
irregularity, or infirmity in the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned
Second Additional District Judge, Bhind in Regular Civil Appeal No.01 of 2016.
The order of remand is fully justified and calls for no interference.
16. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant-defendant
No.1(b) fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 31.07.2018
passed by the First Appellate Court is affirmed.
No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
