2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26633
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Shri Munnalal – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meerabai D/O Shriram Mali – Respondent
MP 909/2023
Somesh Gobhuj,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA st ON THE 1 OF NOVEMBER, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 909 of 2023 BETWEEN:-
1. SHRI MUNNALAL S/O SHRIRAM MALI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GOSHALA MARG, KAJIPURA KHARGONE TESHIL AND DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI KAILASH S/O SHRIRAM MALI, AGED ABOUT
41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, GOSHALA MARG, KAJIPURA KHARGONE TESHIL AND DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI SOMESH GOBHUJ, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. SMT. MEERABAI D/O SHRIRAM MALI W/O NATHU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GANO. NO. 1 NEAR THE HOUSE OF DAU RATHORE PATEL NAGAR KHARGONE TESHIL AND DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. BASANTI BAI D/O SHRI RAM MALI W/O LACCHU@LAXMAN,, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, GOSHALA MARG, NEAR THE HOUSE DAMU PAWAR, KAJIPURA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. NARMADA BAI D/O SHRIRAM MALI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURALIST NEW NUTAN NAGAR COLONY, WARD NO. 28, BEHING NURSERY, (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. PARUBAI D/O SHRIRAM MALI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURALIST, GRAM GONDIYA, POST LEKODIA TEHSIL UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA
5. SMT. LAXMIBAI D/O SHRIRAM MALI W/O BABLU,, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MUKHYAMARGNEAR ATA CHAKKI DABRIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MANUBAI D/O SHRIRAM MALI,, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, NEAR NAG MANDIR, GOSHALA MARG, KAJIPURA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHRI SALAKRAM S/O SHRIRAM MALI,, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURASLIST. GOSHALA MARG, KAJIPURA KHARGONE TESHIL AND DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SHRI JANKIRAM S/O SHRIRAM MALI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, GOSHALA MARG, KAJIPURA KHARGONE TESHIL AND DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SHRI BHARAT S/O SHRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NEAR NEW SANDEEP KIRANA SHOP, MUKHYA MARG, DABRIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. SHRI DONGARIYA S/O SHRIRAM MALI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER GOSHALA MARG, KAJIPURA KHARGONE TESHIL AND DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SHRI KISHORE S/O SHRIRAM MALI, AGED ABOUT
38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE GOSHALA MARG, KAJIPURA KHARGONE TESHIL AND DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SMT. LALITA W/O JAGAN MALI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NEAR LIC OFFICE, GAYATRI NAGAR, JAITAPUR, TEHSIL KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. JYOTI D/O JAGAN MALI,, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SRVICE NEAR LIC OFFICE, GAYATRI NAGAR, JAITAPUR, TEHSIL KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. SHRI AJAY S/O JAGAN MALI,, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, NEAR LIC OFFICE, GAYATRI NAGAR, JAITAPUR, TEHSIL KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA
15. SHRI ARUN S/O JAGAN MALI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS NEAR LIC OFFICE, GAYATRI NAGAR, JAITAPUR, TEHSIL KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
16. STATE OF MP, THROUGH COLLECTOR PASCHIM NEMAD, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.01.2023 by which the trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC and another application filed under Section 65 r/w Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. The petitioners are the defendants No.3 & 6. The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking relief of partition, possession and injunction against the defendants No.1-11.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that he has pleaded in the WS that the plaintiffs and the defendant No.12 are in collusion with each other and there is a document executed by father regarding the property, but the same is being suppressed by them. He filed application for discovery of the said document. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.12 denied the existence of the said document and, therefore, the application has been rejected by the trial Court.
4. I do not find any illegality in the order. Once the existence of the document has been denied by the plaintiffs and the