Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Saharbano Begum vs Abdul Basit/Ansari on 6 March, 2018
S.A. No.293/2013
Jabalpur, Dated: 06.03.2018
Shri Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Shri Rajesh Pohankar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Namdeo prays for four weeks' time to file appropriate application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC with further prayer that the matter will be argued by Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Advocate.
Shri Pohankar submits that on the one hand, the appellant is avoiding hearing of this matter and continuously seeking adjournments and on the other hand, he has filed objection before the Corporation in a mutation proceeding, wherein respondent No.1 has prayed for mutation of his name in the Corporation's record. Shri Pohankar further submits that the Corporation may be permitted to proceed with mutation proceedings in accordance with law and outcome of such proceedings may remain subject to final outcome of the second appeal.
Shri Namdeo has no objection.
Accordingly I.A. No. 16818/2017, for appropriate direction, is disposed of by observing that pendency of this second appeal will not be an impediment for the Corporation to decide the application for mutation. However, the outcome of such mutation shall remain subject to final outcome of the second appeal.
I.A. is disposed of.
As prayed by Shri Hemant Namdeo, list this matter after ensuing summer vacation.
(Sujoy Paul ) Judge ak/ Digitally signed by ASHISH KOSHTA Date: 2018.03.06 17:24:43 +05'30'