Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mithila Singh vs Rajeshwar Singh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50897
1 SA-1868-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1868 of 2005
MITHILA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJESHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the appellants even in second/pass over round.
ORDER
None for the appellants even in second/pass over round.
2 . This appeal is pending for hearing on admission since the year
2005.
3 . Record shows that previously also this second appeal was dismissed
for want of prosecution on 25.01.2017 and was restored on 08.09.2018 by
allowing MCC No.316/2018.
4. Again it was listed for hearing on admission on 19.09.2025 and this
Court passed the following order :-
"None for the appellants.
Mrs. Gauri Pathak, Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is hereby granted to
learned counsel for the appellants to argue the case with the stipulation that
if on the next date, none appears on behalf of appellants, this Court shall be
at liberty to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
List on 24.09.2025 at the top of the list."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50897
2 SA-1868-2005
5 . Thereafter on 24.09.2025, this Court passed the following order :-
"Shri Amilesh Chaturvedi - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.S. Senger - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.Nos. 4833/2014, 4834/2014 & 4835/2014.
Upon due consideration and looking to the subject matter and in view
of the representation of estate by the other appellants, all the aforesaid three
applications are allowed with the direction to learned counsel for the
appellants to carryout necessary substitution in the memo of appeal within a
period of three working days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed
without further reference to the Court.
Accordingly, I.A.Nos.4833/2014, 4834/2014 & 4835/2014 are
allowed/disposed of.
If appeal survives, list for hearing on admission on 08.10.2025 at the
top of the list with the further stipulation that if no one appears to argue the
case on admission, this Court shall be at liberty to dismiss the appeal for
want of prosecution with heavy cost."
6 . As today also none is appearing for the appellants, therefore, it
appears that the appellants have lost their interest in prosecuting this case.
Resultantly, this second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with cost
of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only).
7 . Even otherwise, by the impugned judgment and decree, First
Appellate Court has found the respondents/plaintiffs to be in possession of
the suit land survey No.472 area 0.76 acre, although without title and has
passed a limited decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1-
2 from dispossessing the plaintiffs without due process of law. As has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50897
3 SA-1868-2005
held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs. Nihal Singh
(2001) 8 SCC 584 , the finding on the question of possession is a pure finding
of fact and is not liable to be interfered with within the limited scope of
second appeal provided under section 100 of C.P.C., therefore, the impugned
judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court does not appear to be
illegal.
8 . It is made clear that, if any application for restoration is filed, the
deposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the State Legal Services
Authority, Jabalpur, shall be a condition precedent to entertain the
application for restoration.
9 . Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
