IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JA BALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA ON THE

7th OF NOVEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 5880 of 2024 DIPAK JAISWAL Versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (SEBI) SEBI BHAWAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Puneet Shroti - Advocate for petitioner.

ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 11.09.2024 passed by 28^th District Judge, Jabalpur in Case No.284/2022 by which application filed by petitioner under Section 137 C.P.C. for supply of Hindi translation of written statement filed by defendant No.1, of application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and annexures and for supply of Hindi translation of written statement filed by respondents Nos.5 to 7 has been rejected.

2. It is submitted that since defendant No.1 and defendants Nos.5 to 7 have filed their written statements in English and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has also been filed by defendant No.1 which is in English and since petitioner is Hindi knowing person, therefore, he filed an application under Section 137 C.P.C. for supply of translated copy of aforesaid documents but by the impugned order, the said application has been rejected

3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner does not know English and for proper understanding of written statements as well as averments made in application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. as well as contents of documents, it is essential for him to go through the Hindi version of pleadings and therefore, Trial Court committed a material illegality by rejecting the application filed under Section 137 C.P.C.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 5. Section 137 of C.P.C. reads as under:

“Section 137 – Language of subordinate Courts.-(1)The language which, on the commencement of this Code, is the language of any Court subordinate to a High Court shall continue to be the language of such subordinate Court until the State Government otherwise directs.

(2) The State Government may declare what shall be the language of any such Court and in what character applications to and proceedings in such Courts shall be written.

(3) Where this Court requires or allows anything other than the recording of evidence to be done in writing in any such Court, such writing may be in English; but if any party or his pleader is unacquainted with English a translation into the language of the Court shall, at his request, be supplied to him; and the Court shall make such order as it thinks fit in respect of the payment of the costs of such translation.”

6. From plain reading of aforesaid section, it is clear that if any party or his pleader is unacquainted with English, a translation into the language of the Court shall, at his request, be supplied to him.

7. It is not the case of petitioner that his counsel is not an English knowing person. However, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has a suspicion whether his counsel would be in a position to apprise him about the contents of pleadings in the same sense or not, therefore, he wanted to go through and understand the pleadings on his own so that he can file an effective reply to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

8. Counsel for petitioner was directed to point out the mark-sheets of petitioner to show that he had never gone to an English medium school or he was never taught English subject during his schooling days.

9. Counsel for petitioner fairly conceded that no such document has been filed.

10. There is another important aspect which cannot be lost sight of. The present petition has been drafted and filed in English language. The affidavit has been signed by petitioner thereby giving a declaration that contents have been read over to him in Hindi and he has understood the same. The petitioner has signed the affidavit in English. Above all, the petition has been filed by the same counsel, who