IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA nd ON THE 22 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CIVIL REVISION No. 145 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

1. NABI BAKSH S/O BELI NAYATA OCCUPATION:

AGRICULTURE R/O KANADIA ROAD KHAJRANA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SIKANDER S/O BELI NAYATA OCCUPATION:

AGRICULTURIST KANADIA ROAD KHAJRANA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. NOOR MOHAMMED S/O BELI NAYATA OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST KANADIA ROAD KHAJRANA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. BELI MOHAMMED S/O BELI NAYATA OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST KANADIA ROAD KHAJRANA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. BABU S/O BELI NAYATA OCCUPATION:

AGRICULTURIST KANADIA ROAD KHAJRANA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. RUSTAM S/O BELI NAYATA OCCUPATION:

AGRICULTURIST KANADIA ROAD KHAJRANA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS (BY SHRI VISHAL BAHETI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR OFFICE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMPETENT AUTHORITY URBAN LAND CEILING INDORE THROUGH OFFICE IN CHARGE ANSHUL KHARE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER JUNI INDORE COLLECTOR OFFICE PARISAR MOTI TABELA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH

3(I). BELI S/O HASANJI NAYATA THR LRS. SMT.

KHATUNBI W/O SHER MOHAMMED OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST NAGORA TEHSIL BADNAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3(II). BELI S/O HASANJI NAYATA THR LRS. SMT. BANO BI W/O BABU PATEL OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST JAMKHEDI TEHSIL MHOW DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

3(III).BELI S/O HASANJI NAYATA THR LRS. SHERANBI W/O ALI MOHAMMED OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST DATTANA MATANA TEHSIL UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SMT. VARSHA SINGH THAKUR - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondent No.3(i) to (iii)

are basically defendants with applicants before the trial Court and they are made only proforma party and no relief has been sought against them, therefore, there is no need to issue any notice to them.

2. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally at motion hearing stage.

3. The applicants have preferred this civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') being aggrieved by impugned order dated 18/01/2024 passed by VI Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore in RCSA No.864-A/2022, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 11 and 151 of CPC filed by the applicants has been dismissed.

4. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 and 2 have preferred a suit before the trial Court on 13/04/2022 for cancellation of judgment and Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH decree dated 04/08/2007 passed in Civil Suit No.309-A/2002 against the applicants by stating that respondents No.1 and 2 had obtained the said decree by playing fraud that the father of the applicants has not authority to execute the Hiba in respect of land in question. Thereafter, applicants have preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for dismissal of the plaint by stating that the decree passed by the civil Court was upheld up to the Hon'ble apex Court and Court has given specific finding with regard to Hibanama. The decree was initially passed on 04/08/2007 and suit was filed after a lapse of 15 years, which is apparently time barred. The main issue regarding the execution of Hibanama has already been decided earlier, therefore, there is no requirement to adjudicate the same again and it cannot be adjudicated twice. Hence, there is no cause of action is available to file the present suit. The trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the petition vide order dated 18/01/2024. Being aggrieved by the same, applicants have filed this civil revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the suit is apparently time barred. Initially a decree has been passed in favour of the applicants on the basis of Hibanama and the same has been upheld by the first as well as second appellate