Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 281 (MP)

Dukan Lalmal Javaanmalmal Jain v. Rakesh Kumar

2016-04-04

ALOK ARADHE

body2016
ORDER 1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the validity of the order dated 21.10.2013 by which an application preferred by the petitioner under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. 2. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner, who is a tenant, had filed a suit namely, Civil Suit No.3-A/2011 on or about 20th January, 2006 seeking relief of permanent injunction inter alia on the ground that he is being dispossessed from the premises let out to him without taking course of law. 4. In the aforesaid civil suit, the respondents No.1 and 2 inter alia filed a counter claim for grant of decree of eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The respondent had sent a notice demanding arrears of rent. However, since statutory period of two months was not over therefore, on expiry of the aforesaid period respondents No.1 and 2 filed another suit namely Civil Suit No.4-A/2011 on 12.4.2006 seeking eviction on the ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Accommodation Control Act. Aforesaid suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 17.2.2011 which was affirmed in appeal by lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.3.2012 and ultimately, second appeal namely Second Appeal No.212/2012 is pending adjudication before this Court and which has been admitted by this Court on 16.2.2013. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that when the first suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 3-A/2011 was fixed for final arguments, petitioner filed an application under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for staying the proceedings of the suit on the ground that decree for eviction has already been stayed by this Court in Second Appeal No.212/2012. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the issue involved in the subsequent was different and the first suit instituted prior in point of time cannot be stayed under section 10 of the CPC. The order passed by the trial Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor there is any apparent error on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. The order passed by the trial Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor there is any apparent error on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution can not be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders are passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: Jai Singh and others v. M.C.D. and others [ (2010)9 SCC 385 ], and Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [ (2010)8 SCC 329 ]. In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.