IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA th ON THE 12 OF JULY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 409 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

MADHAV DIED THROUGH LRS. SITARAM S/O MADHAV PHONGLA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 1.

OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST ANJAD, TEHSIL THIKARI (MADHYA PRADESH)

MADHAV DIED THROUGH LRS. MANISH S/O SITARAM, AGED ABOUT

2. 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

AGRICULTURIST ANJAD, TEHSIL THIKARI (MADHYA PRADESH)

ARVIND S/O SITARAM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

3. AGRICULTURIST ANJAD, TEHSIL THIKARI BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI ROHIT KUMAR MANGAL, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1. THROUGH COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) RAJPUR, TEHSIL

2.

RAJPUR, DIST BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NAGAR

3. PANCHAYAT, ANJAD, TEHSIL THIKARI DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. PUBLIC AT LARGE THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OM PRAKASH S/O BOLARAM BHAVSAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH BUSINESS JATASHANKAR CHOWK, ANJAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

PUBLIC AT LARGE THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES ASHOK S/O SURAJMAL LUNKAD, AGED ABOUT

5.

64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS BADWANI ROAD, ANJAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

PUBLIC AT LARGE THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES UDAY SINGH S/O BHARAT SINGH MANDLOI, AGED

6.

ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GADI MOHALLA, ANJAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VINAY KUMAR ZELAWAT, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SHRI AASHAY DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 5.

(BY SHRI RIZWAN NIZAM, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3.

(BY SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

(BY SHRI AASHAY DUBEY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 4)

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

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders dated 22.12.2021 and 13.01.2022, whereby the trial Court has directed the defendants to file translated copy of Exhibit-D/3 in Hindi and English and also observed that the plaintiff shall have the right for cross-examination of translation.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the immovable property described in Para-2 of the plaint. Both the parties placed their evidence and the suit was fixed for final argument. On 22.01.2022, the counsel for the defendants submitted that exhibit-D/3 is a document of the year 1912 which is 30 years old, therefore, it can be read into the evidence. The learned trial court found that the document is written in language, not known to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH parties as well as to the Court. Therefore, the final argument was deferred and parties were directed to suggest the common name of the translator. Since the consensus did not arrive, therefore, the Court directed the defendants to file translated copy of exhibit-D/3 in Hindi as well as English language and gave a right to the plaintiff to cross-

examine the translator if not satisfied with the translation.

3. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. which was taken up on 13.01.2022. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and again Court passed the same order permitting defendants to file translated copy of the Exibit D-3. Hence, this petition has been filed before this Court challenging the orders dated 22.12.2021 and 13.01.2022.

4. Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a specific provision under Order XIII Rule 7 Sub- Rule 3 of the C.P.C. (Madhya Pradesh State amendment) to deal with this type of situation in the pending suit and according to which every document produced in evidence which is not written either in the Court’s language or English, shall be accompanied by a correct translation into English. If the document is admitted in the exhibit, the opposite party shall either admit the correctness of the translation or submit his own translation. It is further submitted by the learned