IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH th ON THE 25 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 3353 of 2024 SMT. MUMTAZ Versus SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT CHIKLANA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Makbool Ahmad Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned P.L. appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-2].

ORDER This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaora, District-Ratlam in RCSA/31/2023 whereby the trial court has rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to repair the suit house.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred a civil suit against the respondents (defendants) for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the residential house of the plaintiff located within the land bearing Survey No.865 (B) Plot No.112 (P) area 203 square meter, situated at Village Chiklana, Tehsil Piploda, District Ratlam (M.P.). As per the averments made in the plaint, on 27/01/2023, an FIR bearing Crime No.14/2023 was lodged at the instance of Up-sarpanch against the son of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA plaintiff and several other persons. So, in collusion with the other defendants, defendant issued show-cause notice to the plaintiff and directed to produce the documents of the suit house. Plaintiff filed a reply to the show-cause notice which was turned down by the Gram Panchayat and issued notice for demolishing the suit house. The plaintiff filed civil suit against the defendants.

3. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of CPC before the trial court stating that the defendants had demolished the front side of the plaintiffs house, including the doors and windows. It was further stated in the application that the plaintiff is residing in the suit house along with her family so prayed for permitting her to repair the suit house. The trial court by the impugned order dismissed the aforesaid application without any cogent reason.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that trial court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Trial court has failed to consider the fact that plaintiff is residing in the suit house with her family and committed grave error in not giving the permission to repair the suit house, so it is prayed that impugned order be set aside and permission be granted to repair the suit house.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order, it is found that first of all, petitioner gave application before Gram Panchayat for repairing the suit house and Gram Panchayat rejected the application with note that civil suit is pending then no permission can be Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA granted during the pendency of the civil suit. So it is undisputed that petitioner was residing in the suit house and she was repairing only front side of the door, window and wall.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the interest of justice, it would be just and proper to give permission to the plaintiff/petitioner to repair the front side of the door, window and wall with condition that if in the conclusion of trial pending before the civil court, the plaintiff/plaintiff fails to succeed in civil suit then she will demolish that part at her own cost.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands allowed.

(HIRDESH)

JUDGE N.R.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA