IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 5764 of 2025

SANDEEP YADAV

Versus

ANOOP GUPTA

Appearance:

Shri Lalit Gupta - Advocate for petitioner.

ORDER mutual relationship between plaintiff and the partnership firm. Additionally, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking to include other partners of the firm as parties to the suit. However, this application was rejected by the trial court. On 16-05-2025, the petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC for the production of documents regarding the rent paid by "Medical Pharmacy" to the plaintiff. The application was dismissed on the same day, 16-05-2025. During this period, the mother of the petitioner's counsel was admitted to the ICU of Kalyan Hospital due to a serious kidney ailment. The counsel remained in the hospital, and unfortunately, the petitioner's mother passed away. On 15- 07-2025, the petitioner's advocate was unable to appear before the trial court due to the serious medical condition of his mother and her subsequent death. As a result, the petitioner's associate counsel submitted an application under Order 14 Rule 5 and Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, requesting an adjournment. However, despite this, the trial court revoked the petitioner's right to cross- examine the plaintiff's witnesses. The impugned order dated 15-07-2025, which terminated the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, is challenged in this Miscellaneous Appeal.

This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant against the order dated 15- 07-2025 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior, in

RCSA No. 811 of 2017.

2. In brief, facts giving rise to present petition are that the

respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent before the trial court, seeking assistance against the petitioner defendant. During the suit proceedings, the plaintiff self-declared to the Court that he had obtained vacant possession of disputed shop from respondent and amended the plaint by deleting the eviction petition. The petitioner filed a counter-claim before the Court, stating that he had joined partnership firm "Medical Pharmacy" as a pharmacist. The petitioner was not the tenant of plaintiff; the tenant was a partnership firm called "Pharmacy," whose partners were associates and relatives of the plaintiff. Petitioner sought to disclose the full facts and the

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the trial court’s decision was unjust, particularly given the medical emergency involving the advocate’s mother. The impugned order passed by the trial court was erroneous and unjust as it failed to take into account the grave medical condition of the petitioner's counsel’s mother, which prevented him from attending the court on 15-07-2025. The trial court erred in dismissing the application for adjournment and in terminating the petitioner’s right to cross- examine the plaintiff's witnesses without considering the exceptional human circumstances involved. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner in failing to appear before the court on the specified date, and the absence was solely due to the unforeseen medical emergency. The principle of audi alteram partem (right to a fair hearing) was violated, as the petitioner was denied the opportunity to present their case fully by cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. The trial court should have exercised its discretionary power under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC and provided an opportunity to appear on a later date, considering the genuine emergency circumstances. The termination of the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses was an excessive and disproportionate measure. The trial court should have allowed one more opportunity to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 4. Considering the nature of the