IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA rd ON THE 3 OF MARCH, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 1006 of 2025 KASHIDEEP THROUGH PARTNER NANDLAL AND OTHERS Versus ABBAS ALI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Arpit Kumar Oswal, counsel for the petitioners.

None for the respondents.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 05.12.2024, whereby the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC for summoning the records of the suits, previously instituted by the respondents on identical grounds for eviction of the petitioners and other tenants.

The facts of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner No.1 is a registered partnership firm and the petitioner/defendant No.2 and 3 are the partners of the said firm who has filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this court finds that the trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the defendant has filed the suit for eviction against the petitioners who are claimed to be their tenants. Signature Not Verified Counsel for the petitioners/defendants has argued that the trial court has committed an error while rejecting the said application. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi & Another vs. Chinnammal Rayyamal & Others reported in AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2352, the judgment of this Court in the case of Mangla Karoliya V. Kaluram reported in AIRONLINE 2019 MP 403 and in the case of Avinash Bihari Mishra vs. Vimla Devi reported in AIRONLINE 2019 MP

898.

Considering the facts of the present case and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the suit is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for eviction and arrears of rent for bonafide need under Section 12(1)(A) and 12(1)(F) of MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Record has been sought of the previous suit on the ground that the suit has been filed by the father of plaintiffs for eviction against the defendants which was dismissed on the ground of compromise between the parties. The suit was filed on the ground of bonafide need. This court finds that under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC is not meant for the purpose to enable a party to get confidence through the court for discharge of burden of proof. The petitioner has contended that the suit was barred by res-judicata and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove the fact. He could have obtained the certified copies of the record of the suit and could have filed to adduce them the same before the trial court.

In view of the aforesaid, this court has not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court and therefore the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi (supra) dealing Signature Not Verified with the suit for partition. The other judgments in the case of Mangla Karoliya and Avinash Bihari Mishra (supra) are also distinguishable in the facts and present nature of the suit.

In view of the above, the present miscellaneous petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)

JUDGE Arun/-

Signature Not Verified