SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

MISC. PETITION No.3550 of 2019

Between:-

BRAJESH KUMAR, S/O SANTOSH KUMAR

JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O

APNA APARTMENT, NEW INDIRA

COLONY,

BURHANPUR,

DISTRICT

BURHANDPUR (M.P.)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O SHYAMLALJI,

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O IN MASJID

QUARTER, KILA ROAD, DISTRICT

BURHANPUR (M.P.)

2.

SHAKUNTALA DEVI, W/O SANTOSH KUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O IN MASJID

QUARTER, KILA ROAD, BURHANPUR (M.P.)

3.

SMT. ARTI, W/O KAILASH JAISWAL, AGED

ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O SANTOSH JAISWAL,

R/O SUDARSHAN COLONY, PLOT NO.8,

DEVPUR, DHULIYA (MAHARASHTRA)

4.

SMT. KAVITA, W/O VIJAY KUMAR JAISWAL,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O SANTOSH

JAISWAL,

R/O

NEAR

CHOURAHA,

AMRAWATI (MAHARASHTRA)

5.

ASHISH, S/O SANTOSH KUMAR JAISWAL,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O IN DORA

MASJID

QUARTER,

KILA

ROAD,

BURHANPUR (M.P.)

6.

SMT. RAJNI, W/O UMESH DHANESHWARI,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O DASHMESH

NAGAR, BEHIND JANTA NAGAR, NEAR

- 2 -

GOVINDNAGAR,

CHANDKHEDA

GANDHINAGAR, AHMADABAD (GUJRAT)

7.

SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O SHRI SURENDRA

RAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O

BUDHWARI BAZAR NEAR RAM MANDIR

CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

8.

ASHOK

KUMAR

S/O

LATE

SHRI

SHYAMLALJI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O

NAVALKHA COMPLEX BLOCK D FLAT NO 31

INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

9.

SMT VIDYA DEVI W/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR

R/O NAVALKHA COMPLEX BLOCK D FLAT

NO 31 AND 32 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

10.

ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE SHYAMLALJI

JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O

KISHANGANJ INDRAPURI APARTMENT

MHOW DIST INDORE MP (MADHYA

PRADESH)

11.

DELIP KUMAR S/O LATE SHYAMLAL

JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 502

KANAT ROAD MHOW DISTT INDORE

(MADHYA PRADESH)

12.

SMT VANDANA W/O DILIP KUMAR, AGED

ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O 502 KANAT ROAD

MHOW DISTT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

13.

SMT SHASHI DEVI W/O SHRI AVINASH

JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O

BADAWADA WADE WALE NEEMACH DISTT

NEEMACH (MADHYA PRADESH)

14.

SMT KIRAN BALA W/O SHRI HEMANT

KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O

VAISHALI NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA

PRADESH)

15.

SHRI

SYED

SHAKEEL, S/O SYED

SHARIFUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O

MOHALLA KHANKA WARD TEHSIL AND

DISTT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

16.

SAYED AKHTAR ALI S/O MOHAMMAD

MUZZAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O

MOHALLA KHANKA WARD TEHSIL AND

DISTT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

- 3 -

17.

TAHSINUDDIN S/O NASEEMUDDIN, AGED

ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA

JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT

BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

18.

ATEEK KHAN S/O RASHEED KHAN, AGED

ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA

CHANDRAKALA TEHSIL AND DISTT

BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

19.

MUSHTAK KHAN S/O HABIB KHAN, AGED

ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O RAJENDRA PRASAD

WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT BURHANPUR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

20.

AKEELUDDIN S/O CHIRAGUDDIN AULIYA,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA

JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT

BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

21.

GHULAM MEHBOOB S/O MOHAMMAD

CHIRAG, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MOHALLA

JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT

BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

22.

FAHEEM AKHTAR S/O SAYEED AHMED,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA

JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT

BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

23.

SHAKEEL SAHAB S/O MANJLE SAHAB, AGED

ABOUT 365 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA

JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT

BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

24.

NAGEENLAL S/O ICCHARAM, AGED ABOUT

65 YEARS, R/O ICHCHA BHAWAN VILLAGE

CHOPARA TEHSIL AND DISTT BURHANPUR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

25.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH

COLLECTOR

BURHANPUR

DISTT

BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

26.

YOGESH S/O RATILAL SHAH, R/O IN FRONT

OF GYANVARDHAN SABHAGRIH RAJPURA

BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

....RESPONDENTS

- 4 -

(SHRI VIJENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE

FOR 1 & 2 AND SANJIV KUMAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE

FOR RESPONDENT NO.26)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on

:

17.02.2022

Delivered on

:

26.02.2022

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates:
Sankalp Kochar,Advocate General

The petitioner in the present writ petition has called in question

order dated 08.05.2019 and 02.07.2019, whereby, the trial Court has

closed the right of the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce the evidence and

has rejected the application under Order 16 Rule 3, 4 and 5 of CPC. So

far as the nature of dispute is concerned, this Court has dealt with the

same in M.P.No.3253/2019 while deciding legality of another interim

order passed by the trial Court against the petitioner, therefore, the

same are not being referred here, except those which are necessary for

the decision involved here.

The learned trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2019 has recorded

that the suit is pending since 2014 and on 18.07.2018, 08.08.2018,

16.11.2018, 20.11.2018, 14.12.2018 and 09.02.2019 opportunities to

adduce the evidence were given and on 08.05.2019 also the petitioner-

plaintiff was not in a position to inform as to who are the witnesses to

be examined by him. No list of witnesses was produced and, therefore,

the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed. The directions were

given to the defendant to produce his witnesses. Vide another order

dated 02.07.2019 the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order

16 Rule 3, 4 and 5 of CPC was considered where the petitioner-plaintiff

wanted to produce four more witnesses who are in his relation,

- 5 -

however, it was seen by the trial Court that since the evidence of the

plaintiff was already closed, the evidence of the defendant was also

completed and hence, after hearing the matter the opportunity for

submission of the written argument was given.

Having gone through the contents of the application (Annexure

P/5) and the reasoning given by the trial Court, I do not find any scope

for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the

instant case, the trial Court had sufficient reason to decline the prayer

of the petitioner at the fag end of the trial. Even a wrong/illegal order

need not be interfered with on mere asking or on a drop of hat {See

Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil1}.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)

JUDGE

Jasleen

1

(2010) 8 SCC 329.

JASLEEN SINGH

SALUJA

2022.02.26 13:08:16

+05'30'

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top