IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA th ON THE 4 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 1280 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

SANJAY PANDEY S/O LATE PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN, R/O H.NO. 1283, PUSHPURI COLONY, NARMADA ROAD, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PIYUSH JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. VINOD KUMAR PASINE S/O LATE BABULAL PASINE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O 103, AADARSH NAGAR SAI MANDIR, PREET BIHAR COLONY, IN FRONT OF BOSE COLONY, NARMADA NAGAR, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SHUSHEEL KUMAR PASINE S/O LATE BABULAL PASINE, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 103, ADARSH NAGAR SAI MANDIR PREET BIHAR COLONY, IN FRONT OF BOSE COLONY, NARMADA NAGAR, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SMT. LATIKA PASINE S/O LATE BABULAL PASINE, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O 1383 PUSHPKUTI COLONY, NARMADA ROAD, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. KAUSHIKI MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

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

ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRIYANKA th against the orders dated 08.01.2020 and 13.02.2020 passed by VI Civil Judge, Class - II, Jabalpur in RCS No.A/1/2018.

2. It is the case of petitioner that an application under Section 10 of CPC was filed and by order dated 06.01.2020 the case was adjourned and it was directed to be listed on 09.01.2020. Although, counsel for respondents/plaintiffs had noted the date as 08.01.2020 but counsel for petitioner/defendant had noted the date as 09.01.2020. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 08.01.2020 and application filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC was decided. On 09.01.2020 when counsel for defendant/petitioner appeared before the trial Court then it was found that the application was already decided on 08.01.2020. Petitioner thereafter filed an application for review which has been dismissed by order dated 13.02.2020 on the ground that application under Section 10 was taken up and considered on 08.01.2020 and it was decided on 08.01.2020. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that review was dismissed on incorrect facts. Infact, counsel for plaintiffs/respondents had also mentioned the date as

08.01.2020 below his signature on the order sheet dated 08.01.2020.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondents/plaintiffs that it appears that there was some typographical error in the date and instead of 09.01.2020, the date 08.01.2020 was mentioned. It is further submitted that presence of counsel for petitioner/defendant was also mentioned in order sheet dated 08.01.2020.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

5. It appears that petitioner/defendant had moved an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC which was taken up on 06.01.2020. As per the order sheet dated 06.01.2020, the case was fixed for 09.01.2020 for consideration of application filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRIYANKA CPC as well as for recording of plaintiffs evidence. Thereafter, without any order of preponement of the case, the case was taken up on 08.01.2020 and the presence of counsel for plaintiffs as well as defendant were marked. The application filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC by petitioner/defendant was rejected and the case was fixed for 16.01.2020. Although, the order is dated 08.01.2020 but the Presiding Officer has signed the order sheet by mentioning the date as 09.01.2020 below her signature whereas, in the corner of the order sheet the signature of counsel for plaintiffs are also there and he too had mentioned the date 08.01.2020 below his signature. Thus, it is clear that infact, the order was passed on 08.01.2020 and the Presiding Officer, for the reasons best known to her, wrote a wrong date under her signature. Furthermore, the trial Court while rejecting the review has not mentioned that the order was not