OFFICE KE SAMNE (MADHYA PRADESH) v. (SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COLLECTOR COLLECTOR OFFICE DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) ANUVIBHAGIYA ADHIKARI MANAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) MUKHAY NAGAR PALIKA ADHIKARI/BHAWAN ADHIKARI NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MANAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) BONDARMAL S/O FULCHAND MAHAJAN FOT THR LRS SMT. CHANDRAKANTA W/O LATE BONDARMAL OCCUPATION: HOUSEWORK SHRI KRISHNA TAKIZ, MANAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) BONDARMAL S/O FULCHAND MAHAJAN FOT THR LRS PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE BONDARMAL JI OCCUPATION: VYAPAR SHRI KRISHNA TAKIZ, MANAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) BONDARMAL S/O FULCHAND MAHAJAN FOT THR LRS NAVEEN KUMAR S/O BONDARMAL JI OCCUPATION: VYAPAR SHRIKRISHNA TAKIZ, MANAWAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) (SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, .....RESPONDENTS ADVOCATE FOR Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 04-08- 2023 10:29:28 2 RESPONDENTS/STATE) This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER This second appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (2) The appellant/plaintiff through their plaint has stated that the respondents/defendants in Ward No.4, Dhar Road, Manavar, District – Dhar (MP) would construct only Cinema Hall / Talkies with condition that only cabin, booking office, Toilet and Water stand are constructed and other than this, no construction is permitted, but the defendant No.4 has violated the terms and conditions of the sale deed and started construction without prior permission of defendant No.3. The appellant/plaintiff further pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3 directly or indirectly supported the defendant No.4 and cooperating in the construction, hence prays for that the suit of plaintiff may be decreed and grant permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant No.1 to 4 and in favour of appellant/plaintiff. (3) The defendants No.3 and 4 have filed their written statement and denied all allegations and pleaded that the plaintiff/defendant submitted that plaintiff had no right to sue their suit and defendants had not constructed anything illegally. The plaintiff has filed the suit without any basis and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 04-08- 2023 10:29:28 3 reject the same with costs. (4) The learned trial Court has rejected the suit and held that plaintiff had no right to file the suit. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, as aforesaid, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment and decree the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. (5) Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the First Appellate Court has committed a gross error of law by confirming the trial Court's judgment and decree. He further submitted that the sale deed is in possession of defendant No.3 or 4 so how the plaintiff can file the document. On this point also, the courts below had committed gross error. He also submitted that both the courts below had committed gross error on the point of court fee. The first appellate court has confirmed the finding on the point of conjectures and surmises without giving any legally justifiable grounds or reasons. It is hence submitted that judgment and decree passed by the Court below is bad in law. (6) I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record. (7) Both the Courts below have concurrent finding that the plaintiff had no right or locus standi to file the suit. On perusing the plaint, written statement and evidence of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 04-08- 2023 10:29:28 4 parties, the plaintiff had no right in the disputed property and he was unable to file the documents of sale deed and hence perusing the record, this Court finds that there is no need to interfere in the findings of both the Courts below. (8) Counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have committed error to impose court fee of Rs.5320/- and on perusal of Para No.10 of trial Court's judgment, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had deposited only Rs.740/- as court fees. He further submits that plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction then it is the duty of the plaintiff to deposit the court fees on the basis of violation of disputed land. On perusal of the plaint and in view of the opinion of this Court, the Courts below has rightly held that the plaintiff has not deposited the sufficient court fee so in view of this Court, there is no interference on the finding of the trial Court with regard to court fee. (9) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree and the findings recorded by the Courts below, thus affirming the judgment and decree of the Courts below, this appeal is found not to be involving any substantial questions of law and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Arun/- (HIRDESH) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 04-08- 2023 10:29:28 5 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 04-08- 2023 10:29:28