Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamlal Vyas (Dead) Through Legal (1) ... vs Municipal Corporation Gwalior on 27 September, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
MISC. PETITION No. 3649 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHYAMLAL VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1) SMT GOPI VYAS W/O LATE SHRI
SHYAMLAL VYAS, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
PENSIONER,
2. ANUPAM RATNA VYAS S/O LATE SHRI
SHYAMLAL VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
2(a) SMT. SHASHI VYAS W/O LATE SHRI
ANUPAM RATNA VYAS, AGED 54 YEARS
2(b) NIKHIL VYAS S/O LATE SHRI ANUPAM
RATNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
2(c) KU. SHIVANI VYAS S/O LATE SHRI ANUPAM
RATNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
ALL PANDIT SHANTILAL JI BAGIA
JARIPATKA NO. 3 PHALKA BAZAR
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
2(d) SMT. NEHA W/O SHRI SUMIT KUMAR
TRIVEDI D/O LATE SHRI ANUPAM RATNA
VYAS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O
TAMBOLI BAKHAL MALHARGANJ INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASHWINI VYAS S/O LATE SHRI SHYAMLAL
VYAS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4. AMITABH VYAS S/O LATE SHRI SHYAMLAL
VYAS, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2
5. ATUL KUMAR VYAS S/O SHRI LATE SHRI
SHYAMLAL VYAS, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ALL R/O PANDIT SHANTILAL JI KI BAGIA
JARIPATKA NO 3 PHALKA BAJAR
LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. OM PRAKASH VYAS S/O LATE SHRI
SHYAMLAL VYAS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
JASWANT NAGAR KHATIPURA JAIPUR
(RAJASTHAN)
7. SMT. ARCHANA OJHA W/O LATE SHRI
PRADEEP KUMAR OJHA D/O LATE SHRI
SHYAMLAL VYAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O 113 RADHAKRISHAN BEHIND MDS
SCHOOL DHIKLI ROAD OLD R.T.O. ROAD
UDAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SOMYADEEP DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR
1.
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
2. GWALIOR CITY OFFICE AT CITY CENTER
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY
3. PLANNING RAVI NAGAR KHERAPATI ROAD
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BALRAM MODI S/O FELIRAM MODI (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS
(a) MANOJ MODI S/O LATE SHRI BALRAM
MODI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
(b) GIRJESH MODI S/O LATE SHRI BALRAM
MODI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
BOTH R/O MODI AUTO PARTS
CHHAPPARWALA PUL PHALKA BAZAR
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3
5) GHANSHYAM MODI @ GHASIRAM S/O SHRI
FELIRAM MODI COLD DRINK AND GENERAL
STORE SHOP, CHHAPPARWALA PUL
LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHRI KANTE, SUB ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION GWALIOR THROUGH
COMMISSIONER, MINICIPAL CORPORATION
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHRI DINESH AGARWAL ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
8. GWALIOR THROUGH COMMISSIONER,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI J.P. MISHRA AND SHRI GAURAV MISHRA - ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2, 6 AND 7)
(BY SHRI N.S.TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
(BY SHRI AYUSH KAUSHIK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA NAYAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.5)
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 714 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MANOJ MODI S/O LATE BALRAM MODI, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION :
SHOPKEEPER R/O MODI AUTO PARTS
CHHAPARWALA PUL FALKA BAZAR, LASHKAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AYUSH KAUSHIK - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM GWALIOR
THROUGH COMMISSIONER OFFICE
NARAYAN KRISHNA SEJWALKAR BHAWAN
CITY CENTER GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4
2. SHYAMLAL VYAS (DIED) THROUGH LRS
2(A) LATE SHRI ANUPAM VYAS S/O LATE
SHRI SHYAMLAL VYAS (DIED) THROUGH
LRS NIKHIL/ LAV VYAS)
2(B) ASHVANI VYAS S/O LATE SHRI
SHYAMLAL VYAS
2(C) RAMU @ AMIT VYAS S/O LATE SHRI
SHYAMLAL VYAS
2(D) RAJU @ ATUL VYAS S/O LATE SHRI
SHYAMLAL VYAS
ALL R/O PANDIT SHANTILAL JI SHRI MALI JI
KI BAGIYA JARI PATKA NO.3 CHHAPPAR
WALA PULL FALKA BAZAR LASHKAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI J.P.MISHRA AND SHRI GAURAV MISHRA - ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDNET NO.1 AND SHRI SOMYADEEP DWIVEDI -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER RESERVED ON : 24.08.2023
ORDER PASSED ON : 27.09.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for order
coming on for pronouncement this day, this Court passed the
following order:-
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved, both these cases are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. Facts are borrowed from M.P.No.3649/2023.
2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-
1. Issue directions to the learned Executing Court to 5 dispose of the execution petition in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandi & Others.
2. Kindly direct the Municipal Corporation Gwalior and its functionaries to comply with the order passed by this Hon. Court and learned trial court regarding demolition of the encroachment raised by respondent No.4 and 5.
3. Exemplary Cost may kindly be imposed on respondent No.4 and 5 for abusing the process of law.
4. Issue any other writ, direction or order as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court; and
5. Costs of the present petition be awarded to the petitioner herein.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that present petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Shri Shyamlal Vyas who had filed the execution case Ex.M.J.C.110/2016 as Decree Holder, which is pending before the Executing Court. Present respondents are non- applicants judgment/debtors in said execution case.
4. It appears from the pleadings and arguments that property of Shyamlal Vyas situate at Jari Patka No.3, Chhapparwala Pul, Gwalior was encroached by present private respondents No.4 and 5 and therefore, complaint of encroachment was made by Shri Vyas to the Municipal Corporation in 1996. On said complaint, matter kept on pending but vide order dated 27.10.2001 for removal of 6 encroachment was passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation against present respondents No.4 and 5. Since nothing happened therefore, an application under Section 307 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was filed by Shri Syamlal Vyas in the year 2002 which was tried before 11 th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Gwalior and vide order dated 24.07.2006, said application was allowed and case was decreed in favour of Shri Syamlal Vyas and issues so framed in the case were concluded in favour of petitioners.
5. To appreciate the factual contours in better perspective following dates and events are important:-
Date Events 09/08/96 Notice to the private respondents No. 4 & 5 issued by
Municipal Corporation Gwalior for removing unauthorized construction. ( Annexure P/2) 07/02/00 Notice u/s 401 of Municipal Corporation Act 1956 issued by original applicant Shri Shyamlal Vyas to Commissioner Municipal Corporation and Ward Officer Ward No. 43 for removing the unauthorized and illegal construction made by private respondents No. 4 & 5. (Annexure P/2) 13.08.2001 Notice u/s 401 of Municipal Corporation Act issued by original petitioner to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation. (Annexure P/2) 17.08.2001 Complaint made by applicant to the Mayor, Municipal Corporation Gwalior for removal of illegal construction (Annexure P/2) 7 20.08.2001 Complaint made by applicant to the Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation Gwalior for removal of illegal construction (Annexure P/2) 27.10.2001 Jankarya Department, Municipal Corporation Gwalior issued the order for removal of illegal construction in Case No. 156/2001x3/10, Area No. 20. (Annexure P/2) 31.10.2001 Municipal Corporation Gwalior issued a letter to Addl. S.P. Gwalior for providing police force for removal of encroachment upto 3.11.2001. (Annexure P/2) 26.04.2002 Proceedings u/s.307(5) of Municipal Corporation Act (Civil Misc. Case No. 09/2005) filed by applicant against the private respondents No. 4 &5 and Municipal Corporation before trial Court. 24.07.2006 Order for removal of encroachment made by Respondent No. 4 and 5, passed by XI ADJ Gwalior. It was directed therein that encroachment was to be removed within 2 months from the date of order. ( Annexure P/2 ).
16.08.2007 Private Respondent No. 4 &5's Application U/O 9 R 13 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court (Annexure P/3 & P/4).
06/09/07 M.A.909/2007 was filed by appellant-Ghanshyam Modi before this Court.
11/09/15 M.A. 909/2007 dismissed by this Court (for non compliance of peremptory order of this Court). Said appeal was thereafter restored to its original number. 2016 Execution Case No. 110/2016 filed by petitioner before learned Executing Court for execution of order of removal of encroachment dated 24.7.2006 (Annexure P/2).
826.08.2021 M.A. 909/2007 finally dismissed by this Court on merits and order of the Learned Trial Court dated 24.07.2006 and order dated 16.08.2007 were affirmed. (Annexure P/5 ).
6. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that since 2016, execution case is pending before the learned Executing Court for execution of order of removal of encroachment dated 24.07.2006 but pretext or the other it has not been concluded yet. Petitioner has not reaped the fruits of decree because of dilatory tactics adopted by the respondents and leniency shown in granting the adjournments by the executing Court.
7. Learned counsel also raised doubt over the intention of Municipal Corporation Gwalior and its functionaries. According to the petitioners, said functionaries have consistently being uncooperative in complying with the directions of removal of encroachment done by respondents No.4 and 5, specially when the issue is finally affirmed by the Court and no stay is operating in favour of respondents.
8. During pendency of execution proceedings, Shri Syamlal Vyas died and therefore, he was unable to enjoy the benefits of favourable order of removal of encroachment dated 24.07.2006. His widow -Smt. Gopi Vyas who is one of the petitioners herein, is aged 86 years old and she is in twilight zone of her life span.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. 9 Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Others (2021) 6 SCC 418 and submits that Apex Court has dealt this issue in detail and has issued certain directions to the executing Court to dispose of the executing proceedings within 6 months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer. According to them it is not the respondents but the petitioners who are causing delay. Counsel for respondent /Municipal Corporation, Gwalior fairly submits that Municipal Corporation and its functionaries shall proceed in accordance with law and would ensure the compliance of court's order.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 opposed the prayer and submitted that petitioner themselves using delay tactics in the matter. According to him, part of the land belongs to Shri Laxmi Mandir and name of Shri Syamlal Vyas has been deleted from the property tax register in the year 2008. Therefore, petitioner and his legal representatives have no right to prosecute the proceedings under Section 307(5) of the Act, 1956. Respondents prayed of dismissal of petition.
12. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.
13. So far as law regarding conduct of execution proceeding is concerned, it has been delineated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah (supra) 10
23. This court has repeatedly observed that remedies provided for preventing injustice are actually being misused to cause injustice, by preventing a timely implementation of orders and execution of decrees. This was discussed even in the year 1872 by the Privy Counsel in The General Manager of the Raja Durbhunga v. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Sing 14 which observed that the actual difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. This Court made a similar observation in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v Sita Saran Bubna, wherein it recommended that the Law Commission and the Parliament should bestow their attention to provisions that enable frustrating successful execution. The Court opined that the Law Commission or the Parliament must give effect to appropriate recommendations to ensure such amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the adjudication of a suit, so as to ensure that the process of adjudication of a suit be continuous from the stage of initiation to the stage of securing relief after execution proceedings. The execution proceedings which are supposed to be handmaid of justice and sub-serve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice.
24. In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 of CPC contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues relating to execution i.e., discharge or satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order XXI. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the question must be the one 11 arising between the parties and secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible.
25. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees, Executing Court must not go beyond the decree. However, there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a re-trial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. Experience has shown that various objections are filed before the Executing Court and the decree holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject matter which he is otherwise not entitled to.
26. The general practice prevailing in the subordinate courts is that invariably in all execution applications, the Courts first issue show cause notice asking the judgment debtor as to why the decree should not be executed as is given under Order XXI Rule 22 for certain class of cases. However, this is often misconstrued as the beginning of a new trial. For example, the judgement debtor sometimes misuses the provisions of Order XXI Rule 2 and Order XXI Rule 11 to set up an oral plea, which invariably leaves no option with the Court but to record oral evidence which may be frivolous. This drags the execution proceedings indefinitely.
27. This is anti-thesis to the scheme of Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that in civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise, must be 12 decided in one and the same trial. Order I and Order II which relate to Parties to Suits and Frame of Suits with the object of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, provides for joinder of parties and joinder of cause of action so that common questions of law and facts could be decided at one go.
28. XXX
29. XXX
30. XXX
31. XXX
32. XXX
33. XXX
34. XXX
35. XXX
36. XXX
37. XXX
38. XXX
39. XXX
40. XXX
41. XXX
42. All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below- mentioned directions:
42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to 13 third party interest in such properties.
42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.
42.3. After examination of parties under Order X or production of documents under Order XI or receipt of commission report, the Court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.
42.4. Under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.
42.5. The Court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.
42.6. In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.
42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The Court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.14
42.8. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order XXI of CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third-party claiming rights in a mechanical manner.
Further, the Court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the Court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant. 42.9. The Court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.
42.10. The Court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order XXI as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A. 42.11. Under section 60 of CPC the term "...in name of the judgment- debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf"
should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property. 42.12. The Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.15
42.13. The Executing Court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the concerned Police Station to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the Court, the same must be dealt stringently in accordance with law.
42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the Court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the Executing Courts.
43. We further direct all the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of CPC, within one year of the date of this Order. The High Courts must ensure that the Rules are in consonance with CPC and the above directions, with an endeavour to expedite the process of execution with the use of Information Technology tools. Until such time these Rules are brought into existence, the above directions shall remain enforceable.
14. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the executing Court to take the execution proceeding with sincerity and promptitude and proceedings annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1 indicates that executing Court too casual in conducting the execution proceedings. It is the duty of executing Court to rise to the occasion 16 and hold the execution proceedings at such brisk pace or day to day hearing so that any decree holder (petitioners herein) must get fruits of the decree either in their life time and/or at the earliest otherwise, whole purpose of undergoing civil litigation would be severely frustrated.
15. Defendants/judgment debtors always try to prolong the proceeding so that they can defer the realization of decree in favour of decree holders which is antithesis to the very concept of Rule of Law and Cause of Justice.
16. Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the present case, it appears that respondents No.4 and 5 tried to exhaust all means available to them in their quiver to stall the proceeding. Earlier they remained ex-parte thereafter, an application was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2007. Thereafter, miscellaneous appeal vide M.A.No.909/2007 preferred by respondent No.5-Ghanshyam Modi was dismissed by this Court vide order datd 11.09.2015 for non- compliance of peremptory order of this Court. However, said appeal was restored on the prayer of respondent No.5. Said appeal again dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2021. Thereafter, it appears that a revision was preferred by respondent No.4(A)-Manoj Modi vide CR.No.388/2021. Incidentally, in the said revision, the order dated 24.07.2006 was passed by trial Court was challenged concealing the material fact that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC filed by his father Late Shri Balram 17 Modi has also been rejected vide order dated 16.08.2007. Since Balram Modi did not challenge those orders further, therefore, those orders dated 24.07.2006 and 16.08.2007 attained finality in 2007 itself. Since, said civil revision was hopelessly time barred therefore, vide order dated 15.03.2022, said CR.No.388/2021 was dismissed by this Court by effect of peremptory order dated 18.01.2022 and consequential order dated 15.03.2023 passed by Principal Registrar of this Court.
17. Therefore, it appears that respondents No.4 and 5 played hide and seek just to frustrate the cause of justice and to avoid the execution of Court order. Such dilatory tactics deserves deprecation and it is the duty of executing court to look into such dilatory tactics and iron out the creases by taking stern stand against such tactics.
18. In the cumulative analysis, petition preferred by the petitioners/decree holders succeeds and his hereby allowed. Executing court is directed to undertake the execution proceedings with utmost promptitude and take day to day proceedings and take stern action if any dilatory tactics is adopted by the counsel for respondents. Municipal Corporation is also expected not to wait for the executing Court for execution. Compliance of order dated 24.07.2006 is already staring them therefore, they can comply the said order passed by the trial Court on their own.Regarding MCC No.714/2023 18
19. Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.1797/2023, an application for condonation of delay.
20. The instant application is preferred by the applicant-Manoj Modi seeking restoration of order dated 15.03.2022 passed by this Court whereby Civil Revision No.388/2021 preferred by the applicant taking exception to the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the trial Court was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2022 purportedly because of non-compliance of peremptory order dated 18.01.2022 passed by this Court in CR.No.388/2021.
21. On perusal of application, reasons assigned is nonavailability of counsel for the applicant because of medical condition therefore, delay of 369 days has been caused. According to counsel for the applicant, same is bonafide therefore, delay be condoned. According to him, he has a good case on merits although he challenged the order dated 16.08.2007 belatedly.
22. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 2(d) vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that it is a case of dilatory tactics because C.R.No.388/2021 was filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the trial Court concealing the material fact that application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC filed by his father Late Shri Balram Modi has already been rejected / decided by the trial Court on 16.08.2007. Since, Shri Balram Modi did not challenge those orders further therefore, orders dated 24.07.2006 and 16.08.2007 both attained finality in 2007 itself. Now the civil revision was preferred after expiry of 15 years from 19 the date of impugned order and incidentally subsequent order dated 16.08.2007 has not been challenged into it. Therefore, the said revision is hopelessly time barred. According to counsel, since father of applicant namely-Late Shri Balram Modi attempted and failed to get relief in proceedings under Order XI Rule 13 of CPC therefore, this civil revision is barred by principle of res judicata.
23. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
24. In this case, application is preferred for restoration of order dated 15.03.2022 which is barred by 369 days, delay of more than a year exists. When this Court gone through the submissions of miscellaneous petition which is decided earlier by this common order then it appears that the delay caused in filing the application for restoration appears to be deliberate. Because, when applicant knew very well about the pending execution and dismissal of M.A.No.909/2007 in year 2021, then it cannot be inferred that applicant had sufficiency of reason to his credit to rescue him. Rather it was a dilatory tactics to stall the proceedings somehow. A mischievous litigant cannot be given any premium by any Court of law otherwise, it perpetuates injustice and frustrates the cause of justice.
25. Applicant is challenging the order of the year, 2006 in civil revision therefore, that revision is barred by delay of 15 years which is very surprising and incidentally it does not contain any reason. It smacks mischief.20
26. In absence of any sufficiency of cause being shown, application for condonation of delay stands rejected. Similarly, no case is made out on merits also because it is challenged after 15 years and that too without challenging the subsequent order dated 16.08.2007 which was proceeding under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC preferred at the instance of father of present applicant. Therefore, he is estopped to raise such pleadings later, under the garb of different jurisdiction.
27. The present petition is misconceived, sans merits, is hereby dismissed.
28. Executing Court to proceed as per directions earlier.
29. Copy of this order be sent to Principal District Judge, Gwalior for information.
30. Ordered accordingly.
(Anand Pathak)
Ashish* Judge
ASHIS Digitally signed by ASHISH
CHAURASIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
H
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7
CHAU
b5195154c3d4de08c6bb9303e5
2e2e7e728d9bac85bd3,
pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8
F9C2790FA9A0FD201D0242B64,
serialNumber=A926F3CBF979EC
A6A4C477577EEDBA3AB4F9459
RASIA
3A930B98DAE1B0AD16F90B5FD,
cn=ASHISH CHAURASIA
Date: 2023.09.27 19:38:27 -07'00'