IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT Indore BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH ON THE 24^th OF JULY, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 1416 of 2025 SMT. RACHNA BAI GURJAR AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Mini Ravindran and Shri P.N.Saxena, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Amit Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Nitin Phadke, Advocate for respondent No.7.

Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, Senior Advocate assisted with Sachin Hirwa, counsel for respondent No.6.

Shri Vishwajit Joshi, AAG for respondent/State.

Shri B.L.Pavecha, Senior Counsel and Shri Piyush Mathur, Senior Counsel with Ms. Kirti Patwardhan as amicus curiae.

WITH WRIT APPEAL No. 1432 of 2025 UMESH Versus M/S SHRIRAM BUILDERS A PARTERSHIP FIRM THROUGH SHASHIBHUSHAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajat Lohia – Advocate for appellant.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE Shri Amit Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Nitin Phadke, Advocate for respondent No.6.

Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, Senior Counsel assisted with Sachin Hirwa, Advocate for respondent No.7.

Shri Vishwajit Joshi, Addl.Advocate General for respondent/State.

Shri B.L.Pavecha, Senior Counsel and Shri Piyush Mathur, Senior Counsel with Ms. Kirti Patwardhan, Advocate as amicus curiae.

Heard on : 17.07.2025 Delivered on : 24.07.2025

ORDER

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla Both the appeals are filed by the interveners challenging the same impugned order dated 21.4.2025 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in WP No.7617/2021 by which learned Single Judge allowed the petitioner and quashed the order dated 22.3.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore. Hence, same are taken together and dispose of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from WA No.1416/2025.

[2] The present appeals under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 are filed being aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7617/2021 whereby the petition filed by the respondent No.7-M/s Shriram Builders has been allowed and the impugned order dated 22.3.2021 passed by respondent No.4-Joint Registrar has been quashed. Consequently, the entire action taken by the respondents against the writ petitioner pursuant to cancelling Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARGHESE the permission dated 28.2.2003 has also been quashed. The petition was allowed.

[3] Counsel for the respondent No.7/writ petitioner raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Writ Appeal on the grounds that Writ Appeal is not maintainable at the instance of an intervener or proposed intervener and also that Writ Appeal has been filed by the proposed interveners without filing an application for leave to appeal. He argued that the interveners have no independent right but their right is to only make submissions in support of a defendant/respondent in a pending lis and they are not entitled for any relief. Later on the appellants filed an application for leave to appeal.

[4] In view of the aforesaid preliminary objection by the respondents, the following questions/issues are for consideration before this Court:-

[i] Whether the Writ Appeal is maintainable at the instance of an intervener or person aggrieved ?

[ii] Whether an intervener or person aggrieved can file an appeal or writ appeal with an application for leave to file appeal ?

[iii] What are the considerations for a Court for granting leave to file an appeal by an intervener or person aggrieved ?

[iv] What are the rights of an intervener and what relief can be granted to an intervener in an appeal ?

[5] The parties were heard on the aforesaid issues at length.

[6] Learned counsel for respondent No.7/writ petitioner submitted that if the statutory provisions relating to appeal under CPC and under M.P Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam, 2005’) ar