Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sardar Nirmal Singh vs Dist. Commerce And Industrices Center ... on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666
1 CR-117-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 117 of 2021
SARDAR NIRMAL SINGH
Versus
DIST. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRICES CENTER GWALIOR AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri K.N. Gupta - learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sameer Kumar
Shrivastava- Advocates for the applicant.
Shri Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria- Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya- Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent
no.2/State.
ORDER
The applicant who is defendant no.1 before the Trial Court has filed this Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by Third Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.86-A of 2019 whereby his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.
[2]. The suit before the Trial Court has been filed by respondent no.1 - District Commerce and Industries Centre, Gwalior (M.P.) praying for declaration that the plaintiff is the sole owner having title and possession of the suit property; a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2004 passed by Tenth Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior (M.P.) in the suit Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 2 CR-117-2021 filed by applicant is not binding on it and the same is null and void, as the judgment and decree was obtained by suppressing material facts, by playing fraud and in collusion with defendant no.1 of the said suit. The respondent no.1 has also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the applicant from taking any action pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2004.
[3]. For convenience, the applicant is referred to as defendant and non- applicant no.1 is referred to as plaintiff in this order.
[4]. The facts giving rise to the present litigation is that the defendant herein had earlier filed a civil suit impleading State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Gwalior (M.P.) as defendant praying for a relief of declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession over the suit property. The said suit was subject matter of Civil Suit No.33-A/2001 and was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2004, (Annexure P/5). The said judgment and decree was challenged by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the defendant therein, in Civil Appeal No.19-A of 2004 which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 05.07.2004, (Annexure P/6). The matter was taken to this Court in S.A. No.109 of 2005 which also suffered dismissal vide judgment & decree, dated 30.08.2010, (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, the SLP was filed by the State of M.P. which came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order, dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure P/9).
[5]. After the said judgment and decree dated 03.03.2004, attained Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 3 CR-117-2021 finality up to the Apex Court, it appears that the defendant herein initiated proceedings for mutation of his name in the revenue records. At this stage, the plaintiff Department has filed the present suit. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint is when it received the notice from Naib Tehsildar , Gwalior (M.P.) for appearance on 08.11.2016, it gathered the knowledge about passing of the aforesaid judgment and decree.
[6]. The defendant thereafter filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P/3). The rejection of the plaint was sought on the ground that the suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC inasmuch as the judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2004, passed in suit filed by the defendant has attained finality up to the Apex Court and pursuant thereto, his name has been recorded in the revenue records. It is stated in the application that the plaintiff is bound by the aforesaid judgment and decree and the present suit is barred by principles of res judicata. It is further stated in the application that the plaintiff is not in actual possession of the suit property and on the contrary, the defendant is in possession of the property as owner and, therefore, the present suit, being a suit for declaration simplicitor is not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
[7]. This application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing reply. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application vide impugned order holding that the issue of res judicata is a mixed question of fact and law and the same cannot be decided at this stage. It is further held that since plaintiff has alleged that it is in possession of the suit property, provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act are also not attracted at this stage.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 4 CR-117-2021 [8]. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendant taking this Court through the judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2004, and the judgments passed in First Appeal, Second Appeal, SLP and the Review Petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted that in view of categorical finding in the earlier civil suit that applicant is the owner in possession of suit land, the present suit is hit by principles of res judicata and is liable to be dismissed. It is his submission that that in view of Section 57 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, since all land belongs to State of Madhya Pradesh, which was a defendant in the earlier suit, the judgment and decree would bound the plaintiff also. He placed reliance upon judgments rendered in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421, Karim Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in ILR 2009 MP 3167 . Placing reliance upon the judgment of this court in the case of Pana Bai and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2019(4) MPLJ 447, he also submitted that the plaintiff is not the juristic person and has no legal right over the suit property and in absence of such legal right, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
[9]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the defendant. He submits that the issue of res judicata cannot be decided at the preliminary stage of the suit without considering the pleadings, the evidence and judgment passed in the earlier civil suit. He further submits that the present suit has been filed by plaintiff Department challenging the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit alleging fraud, suppression of material facts and collusion between the parties therein, therefore, the principles of res judicata Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 5 CR-117-2021 would not be applicable. He further submitted that in earlier suit, there is apparent collusion between the counsel appeared for the parties which has been observed by this Court in the order, dated 23.08.2018, passed in W.P. No.8040 of 2016 (Annexure P/18). The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the issue of fraud, collusion and suppression of material facts being the question of facts cannot be decided at this stage. He placed reliance upon the various judgments of Apex Court which shall be referred to hereinafter at the appropriate stage.
[ 1 0 ] . It is worth mentioning here that the defendant filed the application invoking provisions of clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which provides of rejection of plaint when the suit is shown to be barred by any law from the statement in the plaint. It is his specific case that the suit is barred by principles of res-judicata by virtue of judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2004, passed in earlier suit. The legal principle that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the averments made in plaint alone are required to be seen is well settled. It is also equally well settled that the issue of res-judicata is a question of fact which can be decided only after considering the pleadings, issues, evidence and judgment passed in earlier lis. The judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99 can be profitably relied upon in support of above legal principles. The Apex Court held in para 20 as under:
"20. The Court further held: (Kamala case, SCC p. 669, paras 23-25) "23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted, would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 6 CR-117-2021 Code. The question involving a mixed question of law and fact which may require not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said question cannot be determined at that stage.
24. It is one thing to say that the averments made in the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action, but it is another thing to say that although the same discloses a cause of action, the same is barred by a law.
25. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by various High Courts are not uniform in this behalf. But, then the broad principle which can be culled out therefrom is that the court at that stage would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction of the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application for rejection of plaint should be entertained." (emphasis supplied) [11]. It has been held that the decision on issue of res-judicata is beyond the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC where only the statement of plaint is required to be seen. The evidence in the case is yet to be led by parties wherein the pleadings, evidence and judgment of earlier suit will have to be proved. Further, the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit, which is upheld upto Apex Court, is the defendant's defence which cannot be considered while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Thus, at this stage, rejecting the plaint by considering the defendant's defence is again impermissible.
[12]. Another ground raised by learned counsel for plaintiff that in the present suit, the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit is challenged on the ground of fraud, collusion and suppression of material fact. A bare perusal of the plaint, it is gathered that at more than on places, the allegation Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 7 CR-117-2021 of fraud, collusion and suppression of material facts has been pleaded. It has been pleaded that the suit land, alongwith other land, was allotted to plaintiff Department by erstwhile Revenue Department vide Gwalior Gazette Notification, dated 27.01.1945, after acquiring the land from its earlier owner. The plaintiff Department also claims to be in possession of the suit land. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff Department thereafter granted the suit land to one J.B. Mangaram & Co. on lease for a period of 99 years and the possession was handed over to the said Company. Referring to judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2004, passed by learned Trial Court in earlier suit, in paragraph-14, it is pleaded that even though it was brought to the knowledge of the learned Trial Court that suit property is recorded in the name of plaintiff Department, it was not impleaded as party and the objection raised was rejected only by observing that no documentary evidence has been placed on record. The allegations made in the plaint are serious questions of fact which needs to be decided only after taking evidence of both sides.
[13]. It is worth mentioning here that earlier the defendant approached this Court by filing W.P. No.8040 of 2016 seeking a direction to the Government authorities to mutate his name in the revenue records on the strength of judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2004. This court while dismissing the writ petition vide order, dated 23.08.2018, made serious observations with regard to collusion between the parties. The observations made by this Court being relevant are reproduced hereunder:
"It is pointed out that this is a litigation which is being contested in connivance of certain counsel. It is pointed out that from the decree in original as was drawn in civil suit No.33-A/01 from the judgment dated 3.3.04, it is apparent Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 8 CR-117-2021 that plaintiff was represented by one Mohan Mangal, whereas defendant/State was represented by Surendra Saxena who was a Government advocate at that point of time. It is pointed out that son of Surendra Saxena, namely Manish Saxena was appearing for the plaintiff Sardar Nirmal Singh in Case No.434-A/15 ED (Execution Case) pending before the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, as is apparent from Annexure P/27. It is pointed out that similarly from Annexure P/29, reply filed on behalf of the objectors, it is apparent that same Manish Saxena son of Surendra Saxena is representing the plaintiff. Pointing out such conduct of learned counsel for the State, who had represented the State in the civil suit, and that of his ward who is part of the chamber of Shri Surendra Saxena, it is submitted that there is connivance between the plaintiff and the counsel for the State, and therefore, correct facts were not placed before the concerned Courts due to such connivance of learned counsel for the State who represented the State in the civil suit and the plaintiff."
[14]. The legal principle that where a judgment and decree is obtained by practicing fraud, the principle of res-judicata would not apply, is also well settled. The learned counsel for plaintiff has referred to very many judgments of Apex Court as also of this Court in support of his submission. However, instead of referring to all such judgment, reference to some of those would be sufficient as the same principle of law is laid down in all the cases. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi And Ors. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319 held in para 31 as under:
"31. In Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal 1962 AIR(SC) 527 , the law is stated in the following terms:
"The Code of Civil Procedure is undoubtedly not exhaustive: it does not lay down rules for guidance in respect of all situations nor does it seek to provide rules for decision of all conceivable cases which may arise. The civil courts are authorized to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of court, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 9 CR-117-2021 but where an express provision is made to meet a particular situation the Code must be observed, and departure therefrom is not permissible."
[15]. Again in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors reported in (2005) 7 SCC 605 , the Apex Court held in para 12 as under:
"12. In Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Bros., it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 553, para 20) "Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, "fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act defines "fraud" as act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 10 CR-117-2021 must be of the fact with knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case i.e. Derry v. Peek what constitutes fraud was described thus: (ALL ER p. 22 B-C) 'Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false'."
But "fraud" in public law is not the same as "fraud" in private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish "fraud" in commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining fraud in Administrative Law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secretary of State for Home Deptt. that it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of fraud while determining fraud in relation of statutory law. "Fraud" in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute.
"If a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope. Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administration law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. The misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which the power can be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. "In a contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain.Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 11 CR-117-2021 In public law the duty is not to deceive. (See Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Bros. SCC p. 554, para 20.)"
[16]. Apex Court in somewhat similar circumstances dealt with the issue of res-judicata in cases where earlier judgment is challenged on allegation of fraud, in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors Vs. Government Of A.P. & Ors. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 and held in para 35 & 36 as under:
"35. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel to a decision of this Court in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm & Anr. Vs. K. Santhakumaran & Ors., In that case, after dismissal of Special Leave Petition by this Court, review petition was entertained by the High Court and earlier judgment was recalled. When the matter reached this Court, setting aside the order passed by the High Court, the Court observed:(SCC pp. 387-88, para 4) "4. The manner in which the learned Single Judge of the High Court exercised the review jurisdiction, after the special leave petitions against the self-same order had been dismissed by this court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, to say the least, was not proper. Interference by the learned single Judge at that stage is subversive of judicial discipline. The High Court was aware that SLPs against the orders dated 7.1.1987 had already been dismissed by this court. This High Court, therefore, had no power or jurisdiction to review the self same order, which was the subject matter of challenge in the SLPs in this court after the challenge had failed. By passing the impugned order on 7.4.1994, judicial propriety has been sacrificed. After the dismissal of the special leave petitions by this court, on contest, no review petitions could be entertained by the High Court against the same order. The very entertainment of the review petitions, in the facts and circumstances of the case was an affront to the order of this Court. We express our strong disapproval and hope there would be no occasion in the future when we may have to say so. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, under the circumstances, was palpably erroneous. The respondents Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 12 CR-117-2021 who approached the High Court after the dismissal of their SLPs by this court, abused the process of the court and indulged in vexatious litigation. We strongly depricate the manner in which the review petitions were filed and heard in the High Court after the dismissal of the SLPs by this court." (emphasis supplied)
36. The respondents, on the other hand, placed reliance upon Kunhayammed & Ors. vS. State of Kerala & Anr. , wherein this Court had an occasion to consider the application of the doctrine of merger to orders passed by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court there observed that exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 136 is in two stages; (i) granting of a special leave to appeal; and (ii) hearing of appeal. The Court went on to observe that the doctrine of merger does not apply to first stage i.e. at the stage of granting of special leave to appeal. It applies only at the second stage of hearing of appeals. The Court in the light of above position, laid down the following principles: (SCC pp.383-84, para 44) "44. (i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.
(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages.
First stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and special leave petition is converted into an appeal.
(iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 13 CR-117-2021 exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction in disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.
(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties,
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by Sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order 47 of the C.P.C."
[17]. Thus, in the case in hand, the judgment and decree, dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 14 CR-117-2021 03.03.2004, has been challenged on the ground of fraud, collusion and suppression of material fact. Therefore, rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the principle of res-judicata is not permissible.
[18]. The argument of learned Senior Counsel for defendant that the allegations made in plaint are not sufficient to constitute fraud is also not acceptable at this stage inasmuch as it is the job of learned Trial Court to appreciate pleadings alongwith evidence at appropriate stage of suit. The judgment relied upon by defendant's counsel in the case of Pana Bai (supra) is of no help to him as the issue regarding impleadment of proper party and the plaintiff being bound by earlier judgment, would be secondary. Another judgment in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) is rendered on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC and is therefore, would not apply in the facts of the present case. Further, the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Karim Bhai (supra) was a case where this Court found from the plaint averments itself that the same is vexatious and frivolous litigation being filed by purchaser pendenti lite. Further, in view of judgments of Apex Court referred hereinbefore to say that the principle o f res-judicata cannot be decided at the stage of considering application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the judgement of this Court in the case of Karim Bhai (supra) cannot be relied upon.
[19]. The learned counsel for parties made lengthy arguments with regard to findings recorded in earlier litigations. However, this court refrains from making any observation in this regard in this case and leave it to the learned Trial Court to advert to the same at the appropriate stage of the suit.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9666 15 CR-117-2021 It is also made clear that the observations by this court in this order is made only for purposes of decision on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and would not adversely affect the case of either of the party in the civil suit.
[20]. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The same is upheld. The civil revision is accordingly, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE vpn/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 5/3/2025 3:12:31 PM