Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shailendra Kumar Sisodiya vs Smt. Rani Sisodiya @ Ranjana on 3 March, 2022
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 3389 of 2021
Between:-
1. SMT. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SISODIYA W/O LATE
SHRI VIJAY SINGH , AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
KHYAVDA COLONY, BEHIND COLLECTOR
BUNGLOW CANTT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ARYAN (MINOR) THROUGH UNDER
GUARDIANSHIP OF GRANDMOTHER SMT
SHAILENDRA KUMARI W/O LATE HSRI VIJAY
SINGH SISODIYA S/O LATE SHRI AJAY SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, KHYAVDA COLONY,
BEHIND COLLECTOR CAN.TT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KU. APURVA (MINOR) THROUGH UNDER
GUARDIANSHIP OF GRANDMOTHER SMT
SHAILENDRA KUMARI W/O LATE HSRI VIJAY
SINGH SISODIYA D/O LATE SHRI AJAY SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, KHYAVDA COLONY,
BEHIND COLLECTOR CAN.TT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI RAVI GUPTA, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SMT. RANI SISODIYA @ RANJANA W/O LATE SHRI
AJAY SINGH SISODIYA D/O SHRI BRIJENDRA
SINGH RAJAWAT BEHIND COLLECTOR BUNGLOW
KHYAVADA COLONY CANTT GUNA R/O NONERA
LALLU SINGH KA PURA TEHSIL GOHAD DISTT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14/09/2021 passed in Civil Suit No.197A/2016 by 3rd Civil Judge, Senior Division Guna, District Guna (M.P.) by which the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 151 of CPC and closed the right of the 2 petitioners/defendants to file written statement.
2. The brief facts to decide this petition are that the plaintiffs/respondents had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case was proceeded ex- parte against the petitioners on account of their non appearance. The suit was also dismissed by the trial Court on 19.06.2017 against which respondents/plaintiffs filed an appeal before 3rd Additional District Judge, Guna. In that appeal, the appellate Court passed the order dated 30.06.2020 admitting the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. When the case was fixed for the evidence of plaintiffs, an application was filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 151 of CPC for filing the written statement which was rejected by the trial Court by impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order is wrong, contrary to law and facts available on record. He has further argued that the learned trial court not considered that after the remand of the civil suit the defendants/petitioners were appeared on 16.07.2020 and after that pandemic was prevailing and spreading much higher in the entire country and the trial was also held up. The learned counsel has further argued that the trial Court has erred in not considering the fact that the petitioner/defendant is a very old lady and she suffering from arthritis, hypertension high sugar level and fat problem.
4. On perusal of record, it appears that the learned Third Additional Judge Guna (M.P.) had granted an opportunity to the petitioner/defendants to get the ex- parte proceedings quashed before the trial Court while passing the order dated 30.06.2020. However, the petitioners/defendants after lapse of more than one year did not avail the opportunity given to them and when the case was fixed for the evidence of plaintiff, the application under Section 10 of CPC was filed to grant opportunity for filing the written statement. The trial Court has observed that since the ex-parte proceedings against the petitioners/defendants have not been challenged and attained finality, the question of accepting the written statement does not arise. The above finding is not against the settled principles of law or perverse. The record also reveals that the case was fixed on various dates when the pandemic was going on, therefore, the argument of the petitioners/defendants are 3 not acceptable that due to pandemic the court was not hearing the matter and, therefore, she could not file the written statement. As far as, ill health of the petitioner/defendant is concerned, she had not taken that ground earlier at any occasion which shows her mala-fide.
5. In view of above, the impugned order is not found to be perverse or against the settled principles of law. Consequently, present petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2022.03.11 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 19:11:55 +05'30'