Madhya Pradesh High Court
Muni Kumar Razdan vs Trimurti Charitable Public Trust Thr. on 29 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P.No.449/2018
Muni Kumar Razdan Vs. Trimurti Charitable Public Trust and
others
1
Gwalior
29.1.2018
Shri B.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on admission.
(1) The petitioner seeks following direction vide this
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition
quashing the impugned order contained in Annexure
P/1 passed by the Court below. The further learned
court below may kindly be directed to heard the CS
30A/99 with CS No.14A/2014 on merits and decide
the suits by common judgment
or
this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
defendant/respondents to give written undertaking
that they do not want pursue of their CS 30A/99 Any other suitable relief, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court may deems fit may also kindly be passed."
(2) Evidently the relief is sought on the basis of the judgment dated 29.3.2004 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.156/2000, wherein the Division Bench directed for joint trial of Civil Suit No.12A/2000 and Civil Suit No.30A/1999. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P.No.449/2018 Muni Kumar Razdan Vs. Trimurti Charitable Public Trust and others 2 Appeal No.3474/2009 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16046/2004 decided on 8.5.2009). The facts on record further reveal that Civil Suit No.30A/1999 was earlier dismissed on 24.1.2003. Contending inter-alia that with the passing of order in LPA No.156/2000, the Civil Suit 30A/1999 got restored on application under section 151 CPC was filed in Civil Suit No.12A/2000 for a consolidated hearing. The Trial Court found that there is no order for restoration of civil suit. Consequently, it dismissed the application.
(3) When the relief sought is tested on the anvil of aforesaid facts, this Court does not perceive existence of any cause in favour of the petitioner as could facilitate him with the relief sought.
(4) In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
pawar/-
ASHISH PAWAR
2018.02.02 12:02:59 +05'30'