Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is argued that the civil suit was only for seeking injunction and by way of amendment, he has prayed for declaration of the proceedings and mutation to be null and void and also for setting aside the mutation order. The title of the respondent no.1/plaintiff is specifically denied by the defendants by filing a written statement. It is argued that first application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was filed challenging the mutation proceedings alleging that the death of the father of the respondent no.1/plaintiff without impleading legal heirs to be the party to the proceedings, the mutation was got done, as the respondent no.1/plaintiff was not even a party to the proceedings, therefore, there is no information regarding the mutation proceedings but the application itself is silent regarding the death of the father of respondent no.1/plaintiff regarding the initiation of mutation proceedings in the final order, which has been passed by the mutation proceedings. No date of final order of mutation proceedings have been reflected from the application. Even otherwise, the mutation order passed by the competent authority is required to be challenged by filing an appeal before the appellate authorities. Without there being challenge to mutation order by the authorities, no relief can be extended to the petitioners/defendants no.2 to 4. There is no mentioning in the entire application that whether the mutation proceedings have been challenged before the competent appellate authorities at any point of time by the respondents. The civil suit was filed on 05.03.2013 and the written statement was filed on 08.01.2014 and the issue was Date: 2022.04.18 17:32:01 IST framed on 17.08.2017 and after a lapse of almost three years, the amendment application was filed without assigning any reason for delay in filing the application. There is no relief with respect to declaration sought in the matter. Only injunction has been sought in the matter. It is a settled proposition of law that the mutation does not confer any title over the property in question. This is a suit of injunction and the proceedings are stayed by the learned trial court then everything has to be stand still.

In such circumstances, allowing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was not required in the matter. Order regarding mutation can very well be challenged by the respondents before the SDO. An appeal without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy to file the present petition seeking quashment of the mutation order is not permissible in the pending civil suit.

As far as application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC is concerned, the documents which are prayed to be taken on record were already in possession of the respondent no.1/plaintiff from the very beginning but he has chosen not to file those documents before the courts. It is only after the completion of the evidence lead by the respondent no.1/plaintiff and after closing the evidence of respondent no.1/plaintiff such application has been filed. The application does not show the relevance of these documents with the present civil suit itself. The learned trial court again in a very casual manner has allowed these applications. In another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC being filed seeking an amendment to the effect that by way of second amendment application they are also claiming the declaration in the property in question and further prayed that the mutation order dated 11.10.2012 be declared as null and void and the same be set aside.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the civil suit was filed for injunction. After filing of the written statement, specifically denying the title of the respondent no.1/plaintiff and the issues were framed by the learned trial court on 17.08.2017. After framing of the issues, the first application for amendment was filed seeking amendment in the mutation proceedings order passed by the Tehsildar will be set aside. Application is totally silent regarding the death of Imrat Lal i.e. father of the respondent no.1/plaintiff and what is the date of the mutation order, nothing has been mentioned in the application. Even, it is not mentioned that what is the relevance of staying these proceedings or quashing the order passed by the Date: 2022.04.18 17:32:01 IST Tehsildar as the alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the mutation order before the learned SDO is available to the petitioner under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Without there being any challenge whether the order passed in mutation proceedings passed by the Tehsildar was put to challenge by the respondent no.1 at any point of time is also not reflected from the application.