Madhya Pradesh High Court
Superrintendent Post Offices Chambal ... vs Barjor Singh on 8 December, 2014
S.A. No.15/2013
(Superintendent Post Office Vs. Barjor Singh)
08.12.2014
Shri Vivek Khedkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar, Advocate for the
respondent.
This second appeal u/S 100 of C.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.2012 passed by the District Judge District Bhind in Civil Appeal No. 6/2011, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class I, District Bhind in Civil Suit No. 4B/2008 dismissing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been set aside and the civil suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed against the appellant.
Heard.
The appeal involves the following substantial question of law:
"As to whether, the appellant was not entitled to receive cash in lieu of Indira Vikas Patra, which he brought for the purpose of correction after mutilation."
Para 15 & 16 of the First Appellate Court's Judgment is relevant, which is reproduced herein:
15- vc ns[kuk ;g gS fd D;k oknh }kjk izLrqr bafnjk fodkl i= bl rjg ls fod`r ;k fo:fir gks x;s gS fd mudh igpku djuk gh laHko u gksA oknh }kjk izLrqr bafnjk fodkl i=ksa ds voyksdu ls ekywe gksrk gS fd buesa ls dqN esa Mkd?kj vVsj fHk.M dh lhy] tkjuh djus dh frfFk vkSj ifjiDork dh vof/k Li"V :i ls fn[k jgh gS rFkk muds vk/ks dVs uacj fn[kykbZ S.A. No.15/2013 iM- jgs gSa rFkk fdlh esa mudh lhjht 44&lh Hkh izdV gks jgh gS blfy;s ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;s ,sls bafnjk fodkl i= gS ftudh vVsj jksM fHk.M Jh jfoanz flag ¼o-lk&3½ us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa bl ckr dks ekuk gS fd muds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj fnukWad 13-08-1997 dks fodz; fd;s x;s mDr bafnjk fodkl i=ksa dk vHkh rd fdlh dks Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknhx.k dks fod`r ;k fo:fir bafnjk fodkl i=ksa ds izfrLFkkiu esa dksbZ fof/kd ck/kk gksuk ifjyf{kr ugha gksrk gSA fo'ks"kdj ml fLFkfr esa tcfd oknh ls {kfrxzLr bafnjk fodkl i=ksa ds izfrLFkkiu gsrq bUMsfefuVh ckWM Hkh Hkjok;k tk pqdk gS tcfd ,slk dksbZ izko/kku iksLV vkWfQl eSuqvy esa ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fod`r bafnjk fodkl i=ksa dk izfrLFkkiu ,oa muesa of.kZr jkf'k;ksa dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa fof/klaxr ugha dgk tk ldrk gSaA 16- oknh us dqy 35 gtkj :i;s ewY; ds bafnjk fodkl i=ksa ds Hkqxrku ds fy;s nkok is'k fd;k gS vkSj oLrqr% bu bafnjk fodkl i=ksa dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku oknh dks blfy;sa ugha gks ik jgk gS D;ksafd os fod`r gks x;s gS blds vfrfjDr Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa nksuksa i{kksa ds chp vkSj dksbZ fookn ugha gSA ;fn oknh }kjk izLrqr fod`r gq, bafnjk fodkl i=ksa dks izfroknhx.k izfrLFkkfir dj nsrs rks ;g fookn gh iSnk ugh gksrkA izLrqr nkos esa bafnjk fodkl i=ksa ij ns; C;kt dks ysdj dkbZ >xM-k ugha gS blfy;s oknh ls nkos dk ewY;kadu 70 gtkj :i;s djrs gq, ml ij U;k; 'kqYd vnk;xh dh vis{kk laca/kh fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ ls lger ugha gqvk tk ldrk gSA oSls Hkh oknh dks ftu jkf'k;ksa dk Hkqxrku o"kZ 2003 esa gksuk Fkk og o"kZ 2012 rd mls ugha feyh gSa ftlls mls vkfFkZd uqdlku Hkqxruk iM- jgk gS blfy;s okn fo"k; dzekad 5 ds laca/k esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;/kh'k }kjk fudkyk x;k fu"d"kZ fof/k lEer ugha gksus ls vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk nkos dk mfpr :i esa ewY;kadu djrs gq, ml ij leqfpr U;k; 'kqYd vnk fd;k tkuk rFkk bldk O;ogkj U;k;/kh'k oxZ ,d ds U;k;ky; ds vkfFkZd {ks=kf/kdkj ds varxZr vkuk Bgjk;k tkrk gSA The First Appellate Court while disposing of this appeal in favour of respondent passed the following directions Para S.A. No.15/2013 17- mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWaprh gS fd fo}ku izFke O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&,d fHk.M us vihykFkhZ@oknh dk nkok izekf.kr ugha ekurs gq, mls fujlr djus esa rF; ,oa fof/k dh lkjoku =qfV dh gSA ifj.kker% izLrqr vihy Lohdkj djrs gq, muds }kjk 28-07-11 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa vkKkfIr dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vihykFkhZ @oknh dk nko eatwj djrq gq, mlds i{k esa fuEufyf[kr vk'k; dh vkKkfIr ikfjr dh tkrh gS% 1- ;g fd] izfroknhx.k vkt fnukWad ls lkB fnu ds Hkhrj oknh dks bafnjk fodkl i= dzekad 44&lh&363373 yxk;r 363386 dk izfrLFkkiu dj muesa of.kZr jkf';ksa dk Hkqxrku djsaA 2- izfroknhx.k nkos ,oa bl vihy dk viuk ,oa vihykFkh@oknh dk O;; Hkh ogu djsaxaA\ 3- vfHkHkkokd 'kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij lwph vuqlkj vFkok okLrfod nksuksa esa ls tks Hkh de gks] Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA I have heard the learned counsel for rival parties. Since a very small point is involved in this second appeal regarding return of money to the respondent in lieu of Indira Vikas Patra whom he claims to have been purchased.
Taking into consideration, that no body else is allowed to claim with respect to these Indira Vikas Patra and litigation is pending since 2013, it will be appropriate to direct the appellants to release the money towards these Indira Vikas Patra to the respondents alongwith interest as is payable on the date of realization within a period of two months, of course subject to respondent filing an indemnity bond, so as to ensure the appellant that no body else shall claim the money S.A. No.15/2013 towards these Indira Vikas Patra The amount of Indira Vikas Patra be released in favour of respondent, subject to filing of indemnity bond before the competent post office.
The question is answered in favour of respondent and the appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to cost.
(M.C. Garg) Judge sh/-