Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laal Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Rekha Bai ... vs Tevar Sen S/O Halke Sen (Dead) Through ... on 10 August, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 10th OF AUGUST, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 9496 of 2017
Between:-
1. LAAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. REKHA
BAI RAJPUT W/O LATE LAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR PATE
WARD SINDHI COLONY RIPTA ROAD INDIRA
MARKET GOTEGAON DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
(M.P)
2. SANTOSH RAJPUT S/O LATE LAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, PATE WARD SINDHI COLONY
RIPTA ROAD INDIRA MARKET GOTEGAON
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
3. SARIKA RAJPUT S/O LATE SHRI LAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, PATE WARD SINDHI
COLONY RIPTA ROAD INDIRA MARKET
GOTEGAON DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.S JHA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. TEVAR SEN S/O HALKE SEN (DEAD) THROUGH
LRS SMT MUNNI BAI SEN W/O LATE TARVAR
S E N RUDRA WARD, CHHOTA CHHINDWARA,
GOTEGAON (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT MUNNI BAI SEN W/O LATE TARVAR SEN
RUDRA WARD CHHOTA CHHINDWARA
GOTEGAON (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PAWAN KUMAR SEN S/O LATE TARVAR SEN
RUDRA WARD CHHOTA CHHINDWARA
GOTEGAON (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT NEETA SEN W/O MUNNALAL SEN GRAM
BELKHEDA MATAMPUR TEHSIL PATAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 8/16/2022
10:16:21 AM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BRIJENDRA SWAROOP SAHU - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission on this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, since it is held up matter, heard finally. This petition is under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the order dated 11/05/2017 (Annexure P-6), passed in Civil Appeal No. 31-A/2013 by the Additional District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur (M.P).
In a suit of Landlord and tenant, the present petitioner claiming himself to be a Landlord saying that the respondent was a tenant and suit for eviction was filed. The trial court while deciding the suit framed as many as six(6) issues including the issue with regard to the fact that whether present petitioner/plaintiff was the owner of the house, which is said to have been rented out to the respondent. That issue is negated by the trial court and observed that the father of the plaintiff has been shown in the revenue record as a tenant and finally the plaintiff has been treated to be an encroacher over the said house. The trial court thereafter dismissed the suit and also observed that in a rent receipt produced by the plaintiff during the course of evidence, the signature of the respondent/tenant was not proved by the plaintiff.
An appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and decree and during the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 26 Rule 10-A of C.P.C has been filed asking opinion of scientific expert, just to substantiate that the signature over the rent receipt is that of signature of the respondent/tenant.
Shri K.S Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that application has been rejected by the appellate court on the ground that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 8/16/2022 10:16:21 AM 3 application should have been filed during the trial and the the same has not been done, therefore, application filed during the pendency of the appeal is at belated stage, cannot be considered.
S h r i B.S Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that order passed by the appellate court is justified and in the petition no interference is warranted. According to him this can't be a ground rejecting application.
Considering the submissions advanced by the parties and on perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the appellate court because when the issue with regard to ownership of the house in question and has been framed then it was duty of the petitioner/plaintiff to first prove the title over the said house by adducing sufficient evidence. He relied upon rent receipt only despite the fact the tenant has denied his Landlordship. In absence of any other additional evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit and in appeal, he moved an application for seeking expert opinion.
In my opinion, the consequence for proving the signature of the tenant over the rent receipt would arise only when the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner/plaintiff is a owner and landlord of the house in question. Unless it is proved and found by the court, the tenancy as has been said to have been created by the present petitioner/plaintiff in favour of the respondent/tenant is of no use. Therefore, at this stage I am also not inclined to entertain this petition only for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to get an expert opinion so as to ascertain that the rent receipt contains the signature of the respondent/tenant. Therefore, at this stage I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate court rejecting Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 8/16/2022 10:16:21 AM 4 the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner seeking expert opinion. Petition is accordingly dismissed as without having any substance (SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE tarun Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 8/16/2022 10:16:21 AM