Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1606 (MP)

Ramswaroop Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar

2014-12-05

ROHIT ARYA

body2014
ORDER 1. The short controversy involved in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning legality and sustainability of the order dated 10.1.2012 in Case No.24A/2011 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Guna, relates to rejection of plaintiff's application filed under Order XIV rule 5 CPC where-under prayer was made for deleting issue No.4. Issue No.4 reads as under:- 1- D;k oknh oknxzLr nqdku fLFkr y{ehxat 'kgj xquk ftls okni= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa yky jax ls nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] ij fnukad 15-5-1966 ls Lokeh dh gSfl;r ls dkfct gksdj fojks/kh vkf/kiR; ds vk/kkj ij HkwfeLokeh LoRo vf/kdkj izkIr gks x;s gS\ 2- D;k fnukad 9-6-1980 dks Jherh vk'kkyrk fot;oxhZ; }kjk izfroknh jktsUnz ds gd esa fd;k x;k oknxzLr nqdku dk foØ; i= oknh ds fo#) 'kwU; o izHkkoghu gS\ 3- D;k izfroknh }kjk oknh ds oknxzLr nqdku ds mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx esa voS/k :i ls gLr{ksi fd;k tk jgk gS\ 4- D;k oknxzLr nqdku ds laca/k esa izfroknh }kjk ,d okn 88v@1992 f}rh; O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&1 xquk ds U;k;ky; esa izpfyr gksdj 10-7-1994 dks fujkd`r gks pqdk gS ,oa ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh fjDr vkf/kiR; dh fMØh nh xbZ Fkh\ 2. Trial Court has rejected the application on the premise that the aforesaid issue has been framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and, therefore, no illegality is found on the said issue, hence, the application under section XIV Rule 5 CPC was totally misconceived and rejected the same. 3. Questioning the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid issue is purportedly with reference to the averments made in the written statement in para 5. 3. Questioning the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid issue is purportedly with reference to the averments made in the written statement in para 5. Relevant excerpt thereof reads as under:- okLrfodrk ;g gS fd oknxzLr nqdku ds mij fufeZr fjgk;lh Hkkx esa oknh jkeLo:i xqIrk Jherh vk'kkyrk fot;oxhZ; ds tekus ls gh fdjk;snkj ds :Ik esa fuokl dj jgk FkkA oknh ds fuokl dk vk/kk LFkku izfroknh ds cMs+ HkkbZ ?ku';ke lksuh ds LokfeRo dk Fkk vkSj vk/kk Hkkx izfroknh ds LokfeRo dk FkkA izfroknh ,oa izfroknh ds cMs+ HkkbZ ?ku';ke lksuh us vyx&vyx nks okn fjgk;lh Hkkx [kkyh djkus ds fy,] oknh ds foijhr izLrqr fd;s izfroknh }kjk izLrqr okn U;k;ky; f}rh; O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&1 xquk esa izdj.k Øekad 88vk@1992 ij fu;r gqvk vkSj ml okn eas oknh ds LokfeRo dk vkoklh; Hkkx fnukad 10-7-1994 dks fjDr djus dh vkKfIr nh xbZ tks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls Hkh oknh ds cMs+ HkkbZ }kjk izLrqr izdj.k Øekad&113 v@1996 b-nh- U;k;ky; O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&2 xquk ij fopkjk/khu gksdj 5-5-2000 dks fjDRk djus dh vkKfIr nh xbZ vkSj oknh ds foijhr ;g fu.kZ; ekuuh; e/;izns'k mPp f}rh; vihy Øekad&504@2002 ij ;Fkkor dk;e j[kk tkdj oknh ds cM+s HkkbZ ds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks gky gh esa ds ekSds ij vkf/kiR; iznku fd;k x;k gSA oknh ds cMs+ HkkbZ }kjk izLrqr izdj.k Øekad&113v@1998 b-nh- U;k;ky; O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&2 xquk esa oknh us fnukad 27-1-1984 dks mlds dFku ds in Øekad&5 esa] oknh us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd oknxzLr nqdku izfroknh ds LokfeRo dh gS vkSj oknxzLr nqdku esa oknh] izfroknh ds fdjk;snkj ds :i esa vfèkokflr gksdj dkWyst VkbZfiax baLVhV~;wV ds uke ls O;olk; dj jgk gSA 4. It is submitted that in the light of the aforesaid averments, the trial Court could not have framed the issue related to the suit shop as pleaded in the plaint because Civil Suit No.88A/1992 was not filed in relation to the suit shop and the same was filed in relation to the premises on the upper floor of the disputed shop as pleaded in the written statement, therefore, the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error while framing the aforesaid issue. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendants though at the first instance tried to defend the order passed by the trial Court, however, upon being confronted with the averments made in the written statement, he accepts the fact that Civil Suit No.88A/1992 was filed in relation to residential upper floor of the suit shop. 6. In view of aforesaid, though the prayer for deletion of issue No.4, as made by the petitioner, cannot be countenanced, but the trial Court is directed to amend issue No.4 in the light of the averments made in para 5 of the written statement, as quoted above. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to act accordingly. Writ petition stands disposed of. D. D. Bansal for petitioner; Santosh Agrawal for respondent.