[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Shriji Maharaj Shyamcharan ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3390
1 MP-255-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 255 of 2026
SHRI SHRIJI MAHARAJ SHYAMCHARAN DEVACHARYA
PRABANDHAK AKHIL BHARTIYA NIMBAKACHARYA NIMBARK
PEETH SA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Sankhla - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred assailing the impugned order dated 03.12.2025, Annexure P-1
whereby the application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with 151 of CPC filed
by the defendants no.4 to 8/respondents no.4 to 8 along with other
applications have been allowed.
2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for
declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the
respondents over the disputed property Survey Nos. 18 Rakba 3.265, 19,
Rakba 0.867, 20 Rakba 1.578, 21 Rakba 1:465, 22 Rakba 0.283, 23 Rakba
1.829, 26 Rakba 0.146 , 27 Rakba 1.287, Total Survey No.8 Total Rakba
10.720 Total Tax 100.80.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3390
2 MP-255-2026
written statement, an application under Order 11 Rule 12 r/w Section 151 of
CPC, Annexure P-5 was filed by defendants no.4 to 8 for calling originals of
power of attorney, will executed by Nandram, certificate of Trust issued
from Assistant Commissioner, Dev Sthan, Jaipur, Khand Jaipur stating that
all these documents have been filed along with the plaint, which was replied
by the plaintiff and after hearing the same has been allowed. He further
submits that except photocopy of Mukhtiyarnama, no documents have been
filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint nor he is proposing to file those
documents in support of the plaint. Nothing has been mentioned in the
application as to why the originals of these documents are required and what
bearing they have in the controversy involved in the present suit. The learned
trial Court has allowed the application without going through the record that
except photocopy of general power of attorney, no document whose
originals are required by the defendants have been filed with the plaint. On
these submissions prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the
impugned order. He has relied upon the case of Harish Chandra Kasotiya
Vs. Deepak Kumar Agrawal 2012 SCC Oline MP 534.
4. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
5. Going through the statement of the petitioner when except
Mukhtiyarnama, no other documents either will by Nandram nor certificate
of Trust, lease deed (Patta) and Dastavej dakhla have not been filed by the
petitioner then there was no occasion to direct for filing of all the aforesaid
original documents and particularly when defendants have not mentioned in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3390
3 MP-255-2026
the application as to how these documents were relevant for adjudicating the
controversy.
6. In the case of Harish Chandra Kasotiya (Supra) it has been held as
under:-
"By simply filing the application under Order 11 Rule 12 for
discovery of document, defendant does not get a right to get the
application allowed. Learned trial Court has dismissed the
application on the ground that burden of proof regarding
availability of alternate accommodation is on the defendant and at
a belated stage, the case is fixed for cross examination of the
witnesses of plaintiff, application for discovery of documents
cannot be allowed."
7. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view
that the impugned order has been passed mechanically without applying
judicial mind which is not sustainable in law. Hence, the petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 03.12.2025, Annexure P-1 passed by the trial
Court is set aside.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed off.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
