Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/368/2024 of MANISH KUMAR MEHTA Vs PRAVEEN on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 368 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MANISH KUMAR MEHTA S/O PRAVEEN BHAI MEHTA,AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/OSUBHASH WARD PARDI ROAD PANDHURNA DISTRICTPANDHURNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MS. PURNIMA BHALERAO - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.PRAVEEN S/O DULICHAND BHAI MEHTA, AGEDABOUT 81 YEARS, R/O RANI DURGAVATI WARDPANDHURNA DISTRICT PANDHURNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.ANISH KUMAR MEHTA S/O PRAVEEN BHAIMEHTA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O RANIDURGAVATI WARD PANDHURNA DISTRICT(MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE )
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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
Petitioner's contention is that he is aggrieved of order dated 21/09/2023
passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in CaseNo.0045/Appeal/2022-23 on the ground that family partition had taken place interms of the provision contained in Section 178 of M.P.L.R.C.
2. There is only one defect in the family partition that though petitioner has received his share of land in appropriate terms but he has not been given anyway to the property. It is submitted that petitioner had filed first appeal beforethe SDM and thereafter second appeal before the Additional Commission butboth have come to be dismissed, hence this miscellaneous petition.
3. Petitioner's contention is that since civil suit was pending, therefore,SDM and Additional Commissioner should not have shown indulgence duringpendency of civil suit.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and in terms of the fairadmission made by Ms. Purnima Bhalerao, learned counsel for the petitionerthat civil proceedings were drawn after the order of the Tahsildar, this Court isof the opinion that petitioner will be free to agitate her right to way in the suitproperty on the basis of the partition before the Civil Court and any findingrecorded by any of the revenue authorities or this Court, will not come in theway of adjudication of such case for seeking right to way or easementary righton the suit property.
5. In above terms, this petition is disposed of.
ts
(VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE