Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 842 (MP)

Rajesh v. Ramkali Bai

2020-09-01

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
ORDER 1. Today the case is fixed for admission as well as for consideration of I.A. No. 55/2020. 2. This Court by interim order dated 27.7.2020 has directed the parties to maintain status quo. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the appeal has been filed belatedly along with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act and since the delay has not been condoned, therefore, this Court in the light of Order 41 rule 3A(3) of CPC cannot pass an interim order. Further in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt reported in (2016) 11 SCC 235 , no interim order can be passed until and unless the appeal is admitted. Accordingly, it is submitted that for the time being, the interim order dated 27.7.2020 may be recalled and I.A. No. 55/2020 may be reconsidered at the time of admission of appeal. 4. In view of the statutory provisions of Order 41 rule 3A(3) of CPC as well as in the light of judgment passed in the case of Raghavendra Swamy (supra), the order dated 27.7.2020 is hereby recalled. It is directed that I.A. No. 55/2020 shall be reconsidered at the time of admission. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that although he has filed an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, but it has not been listed for consideration and since the respondents are represented through their counsel, therefore, the application may be considered at the earliest. 6. Prayer made by the counsel for the appellant is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, office is directed to register the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 7. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that by the trial Court, it was held that there is a deficiency of Court Fee of Rs.6,000/-, but still the appellant has paid less Court fee. 8. The matter be placed before the Taxing Officer to find out as to whether the adequate court fee has been paid or not. 9. List this case for consideration of application for condonation of delay as well as for admission and after the report of Taxing Officer is received.