Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 762 (MP)

Suleman v. Gopal Murti Dubey

2013-07-04

Sheel Nagu

body2013
ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and IA No.2541/2012 seeking vacation of the ex parte stay order passed by this Court on 30.9.2011, whereby operation of the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below have been stayed. Records of both the Courts below are perused. 2. A perusal of the order of the first appellate Court passed on 15.9.2011 elicits that while upholding rejection of the application under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC filed by the appellant herein, the first appellate Court held as follows :- (i) Though the appellant has filed certain rent receipts for the initial period, but no rent receipts for the period subsequent to 2003 have been produced to demonstrate that the appellant is the tenant as claimed by him. (ii) Ex.P/29 produced by the appellant, which is a notice sent to the appellant by landlord Satya Prakash Gautam is also of no avail to the appellant as said Satya Prakash Gautam or his counsel was not brought forth for being examined and cross-examined to prove the said Ex.P/29. (iii)Documents Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/6, which the appellant claims to be the registration of the shop in question under the Shops and Establishments Act also do not establish the appellant to be the tenant. (iv)Appellant has taken contradictory stand by contending that he is the tenant and simultaneously assails the status of Gopal Moorty Dubey as landlord by producing Ex.P/31 to Ex.P/38 and Ex.P/161 to Ex.P/163. (v) No document whatsoever has been produced by the appellant to substantiate his contention of being the tenant. 3. The above factual findings have been arrived at on the basis of material and evidence on records, which this Court finds to be unassailable as the appellant herein has failed to establish that these findings are either perverse or untenable in the eyes of law. 4. In fact both the Courts below while dealing with the application under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC have categorically found the appellant to be the servant of the landlord, who is attempting to usurp the status of tenant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Arjan Dev v. Om Prakash : AIR 1992 Delhi 202 (Para-7) and Dayal Das v. Rajendra Prasad : 2012 (2) MPLJ 460. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Arjan Dev v. Om Prakash : AIR 1992 Delhi 202 (Para-7) and Dayal Das v. Rajendra Prasad : 2012 (2) MPLJ 460. 6. As regards the case of Arjan Dev (supra), it is seen that Delhi High Court was not dealing with an application under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC and, therefore anything laid down by Delhi High Court in the said case cannot have any credential value qua the dispute involved in the present case. Moreso, the case of Dayal Das (supra) decided by this Court was also not dealing with an application under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC and, therefore, it is of no avail to the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the decision of Ashok Kumar v. S.R. Verma : 2008 (3) MPLJ 582 to contend that no interference in the second appeal is required to be made against the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below. 8. In view of the above, it is evident that no material illegality or irregularity can be found in the orders passed by the Courts below. This Court does not find that either any substantial questions of law as proposed or any new one arise for consideration and, therefore this second appeal is dismissed sans costs.