IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 18 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5156 of 2025 BABURAM SHARMA AND OTHERS Versus SMT MEENA SIKARWAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Saurabh Bhelsewale - learned Counsel for petitioner- plaintiffs.

Shri Mehmood Khan- learned Counsel for respondent No.1/

defendant No.1 Shri Dileep Kumar Awasthi - learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2/ State.

ORDER Present miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging impugned orders dated 12.07.2025 and order dated 12.08.2025 passed by 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in RCSA No.986/2021, whereby the applications filed by petitioners/plaintiffs under Sections 65 and 63 of the Indian Evidence Act have been rejected.

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 02.11.2018 and for permanent injunction concerning land bearing Survey Nos. 248/2 (0.993 hectare), 249 (0.543 hectare), and 250 (1.160 hectare), situated at Village Purani Chhawani, Patwari Halka No.46, Tehsil and District Gwalior (referred to as "the disputed property"). It is alleged by the plaintiffs that that they entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 for sale of the disputed property for a total consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- on 02.11.2018. It was further pleaded that an advance of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid to defendant No. 1 in the presence of witnesses, with the balance amount to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Despite repeated requests from the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed and later attempted to sell the property to a third party at a higher price. Plaintiffs sent legal notices on 07.04.2021 and 14.07.2021, demanding performance of the contract, but defendant No. 1 did not comply.

3. In response, defendant No. 1 filed a written statement denying plaintiffs' claims, asserting that the initial agreement executed in 2014 was without consideration, and subsequent 2018 agreement was not acted upon by the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 further claimed that she no longer wished to sell the property due to its increased value and her need to retain it for future maintenance.

4. By placing reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Keshav Singh vs. Ramesh (MP No. 5506 of 2028, decided on 17.12.2024), it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that trial court erred in rejecting their applications under Sections 65 and 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. Defendant No.1 admitted the execution of both agreements in her written statement, and the original sale agreement was lost on 08.11.2023, as reported to Bahodapur Police Station. Therefore, petitioners sought admission of a photocopy of the agreement as secondary evidence. It is further contended that trial Court’s rejection of their application was hyper-technical and failed to consider the fact that defendant No. 1 did not dispute the execution of the agreements in her written statement. It is further contended that the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was duly submitted and should have been taken into account by the trial Court. Therefore, petitioners seek setting aside of impugned orders passed by the trial Court.

5. On the other hand, by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Rakhi Yadav vs. Krishnagopal Sharma and Others (MP No. 4461 of 2025, decided on 28th of August, 2025), learned counsel for respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) contended that trial Court’s order was correct and justified. It is argued that plaintiffs’ claim regarding the loss of original document is false, as the application was filed nearly 11 months after the alleged loss. The report filed by plaintiffs about the document’s loss was not from a party to the agreement and was