The court confirmed that documents relevant to land surveys can be admitted even after changes, ensuring judicial decisions respect jurisdictional boundaries.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT nd ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 4547 of 2025 GOVIND SINGH Versus LALLU SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Himanshu Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P/7) passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Narmadapuram to the Court of I Civil Judge, Narmadapura in ExA No. 07/2016, whereby an application-IA No. 1/25 submitted by the Decree Holder under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , has been allowed.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being son of the original judgment debtor had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 of CPC objecting the execution. The respondent/decree holder had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC for taking certain documents on record i.e. Bandobast Naksha, Kishtbandi of the year 1954-55 and Settlement (Misal Bandobast) of 2014-15 of Kh. No. 256. It is submitted Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA that the learned court below should have not taken these documents on record because the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The documents are in respect of Survey No. 315 and the decree has been passed in respect of Survey No. 256 and prayed for quashment of the impugned order.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is evident from the impugned order that Survey No. 256 was old number, which was prior to settlement (Misal Bandobast) but thereafter, new number was assigned to that land i.e. Survey No. 315. It is observed by the learned court below that such fact has been admitted by the revenue authorities in their examination before the court in the trial. It has also been found that there is no dispute in regard that the Survey No. 256 has been changed to Survey No. 315. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned court below has allowed the application and such documents of revenue entries have been taken on record.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the documents are in-

fact of Survey No. 256, which has been changed to Survey No. 315. Therefore, the learned court below has not exceeded its jurisdiction or gone beyond the decree to take such documents on record. Thus, the learned court below has not committed any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error. This Court under supervisory jurisdiction as enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the orders, which are absolutely in consonance of law.

6. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA that by the same order, an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC has been decided and the petitioner is challenging the said order in the first appeal and he may be given liberty to take a defence in regard to such documents. The petitioner is at liberty to do so.

7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is dismissed.