Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCC/2382/2019 of SMT. HIRABAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESHON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2382 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SMT. HIRABAI W/O LATE SHRI KASHIRAMCHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSE WIFE 10/10, RAVIDAS NAGAR, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI RAVI SHANKAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COLLECTORCOLLECTORATE, MOTI TABELA, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)COLLECTORATE, MOTI TABELA, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
2.TEHSILDAR TEHSILDAR INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)PRADESH)
3.RAMSWARUP JHAVAR S/O SHRI GOPALDASJHAVAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:ADVOCATE TAX CONSULTANT 47, ASHO KNAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)JHAVAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:ADVOCATE TAX CONSULTANT 47, ASHO KNAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.NARENDRA S/O LATE SHRI KASHIRAMCHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST 10/10, RAVIDASNAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST 10/10, RAVIDASNAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.KU. CHHAYA D/O LATE SHRI KASHIRAMCHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD 10/10, RAVIDASNAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD 10/10, RAVIDASNAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.LAXMI D/O LATE SHRI KASHIRAM CHOUDHARY,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD 10/10, RAVIDAS NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD 10/10, RAVIDAS NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS(SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI PL FOR RESPONDENT/STATE ANDSHRIRIZWAN KHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.7184/2019 an application under Section 5 of theLimitation Act for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that the applicant has notexecuted power of attorney in favour of Dayashankar and Dayashankarwithdrew the case.
On perusal of the record, it is found that the applicant did not dare to fileany complaint against Dayashankar in executing the forged document.
In view of the aforesaid, the delay in filing the MCC is not properlyexplained. Hence, this application is dismissed.
Consequently, the MCC also stands dismissed.
RJ
(HIRDESH)JUDGE