IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI MISC. PETITION No. 2133 of 2021 PAWAN NARANG AND OTHERS Versus RAMESHWAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri V. K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vinay Vijaywargiya, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Rishi Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Heard on : 21.08.2025 Pronounced on : 16.09.2025 ORDER The miscellaneous petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the orders 27.03.2021 (Annexure- P/13) and 29.06.2021 (Annexure-P/18) passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Mhow, District Indore in COS No.4A/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, application under Section 149 of CPC and application under Order 14 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC have been dismissed by order dated 27.03.2021 and application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed by order dated 29.06.2021.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a civil suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and for execution and registration Signature Not Verified of sale deed claiming that the petitioners have paid full sale consideration of Rs.10.00 lacs in respect of the suit property of land bearing survey No.172/1, Patwari Halka No.27, Village Shivnagar, Tehsil Mhow, area 0.437 hectare to the respondent No.1 and a sale agreement was executed and initially the said agreement was without possession. At the time of execution of the said agreement, Rs.8.00 lacs as part sale agreement was paid through cheque and later on, remaining amount of Rs.2.00 lacs was also paid and petitioners got the possession of the suit property. In addition, the respondent No.1 also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No.2 but dishonesty prevailed over respondent No.1 who delayed the execution of the sale deed and also cancelled the power of attorney in favour of petitioner No.2 by issuing a notice. Alongwith the plaint, the petitioners have also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. Learned Trial Court by order dated 12.08.2014 upholding the agreement and possession of the petitioners has allowed the said application by holding that petitioners have a prima-facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and would suffer irreparable loss if the application is not allowed. Learned Trial Court has held that there are written documents showing the agreement between the parties and payment is made by cheque and also document showing that respondent No.1 has handed over the possession. During pendency of the suit, the aforesaid documents i.e. agreement to sale and possession receipt were impounded by the Court and were sent to the Collector of Stamps for payment of duty and penalty and for validation, which after due validation was produced before the Court in the year 2019. Being aggrieved by the Signature Not Verified aforesaid, the petitioners have filed the said applications before the Trial Court, which were dismissed vide impugned orders.

3. During pendency of the suit, on 18.01.2021, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC for bringing on record subsequent event and also to elucidate the facts. The respondent has filed its reply opposing the said application. The petitioners in addition to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction have also claimed the relief of specific performance but the Court fees for the same was not paid. An application under Section 149 of CPC was also filed and in light of the aforesaid amendment application, the valuation and Court fees may also be reassessed. Another application under Order 14 Rules 5 of CPC was filed on 19.01.2021 for framing of issues. Thereafter, on the basis of subsequent developments, petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC on 21.01.2021 to elucidate the facts in detail and also to bring on record subsequent