IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 6^th OF JULY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 2589 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

GURUDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT GURUDWARA NANAKSAR HAMIDIA ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI HARPREET SINGH GUPTA- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. BHOPAL GARAGE AND SERVICE STATION THROUGH PARTNERS A.

PARAMJEET SINGH BEDI S/O LATE SATWANT SINGH BEDIE AGED 58 YEARS R/O 31 A, BHOPAL GARAGE AND SERVICE STATION, BERASIA ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

B. SUNITA BEDI W/O PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O 31 A, BHOPAL GARAGE AND SERVICE STATION, BERASIA ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

C. MANNU BEDI S/O PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O 31 A, BHOPAL GARAGE AND SERVICE STATION, BERASIA ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

D. RAHUL BEDI S/O PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O 31 A, BHOPAL GARAGE AND SERVICE STATION, BERASIA ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. GURUDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY GURUDWARA NANAKSAR, HAMIDIA ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE)

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

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 22.12.2021 by which the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses was closed and order dated 10.11.2022 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of C.P.C. to grant a last opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses was rejected by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), District Court, Bhopal in Case No. RCSA/845/2016.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondents have filed a civil suit on 07.10.2016 for possession of three shops in the Gurudwara Parisar as well as for injuncting the Gurudwara from handing over possession of the shops to any other entity. The suit was dismissed in default on 17.05.2017. Therefore, it was restored. By order dated 22.12.2021, the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses was closed. Accordingly, an application was preferred on 13.01.2022 before the District Judge, Bhopal for transfer of case from the trial Court to any other Court. Accordingly, the matter was transferred to the Court of 7^th Civil Judge, Bhopal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. before the new trial Court for restoration of the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff. In this application, it was submitted that the primary reason for inability to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses was the ill health of the lawyer. However, by order dated 10.11.2022, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of C.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that the trial Court has no power to review its own orders under Section 151 of C.P.C.

3. Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that because of ill health of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default by order dated 17.05.2017. Thereafter, it was restored back. Thereafter, Examination-in-Chief of the plaintiff Paramjit was recorded on 14.03.2019, but since the possibility of compromise was explored, therefore, the plaintiff was not cross-examined. Thereafter, the health of the counsel for the petitioner deteriorated and, therefore, he was not available and under these circumstances, the petitioner could not cross- examine the plaintiff. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner is ready to pay the cost, if it is imposed from restoration of the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has not approached this Court w