Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/461/2024 of THAWALI Vs SMT. KASHTURIBAI on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 461 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.THAWALI S/O JAMSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/OGRAM GHONGHSA TESHSIL AND DISTT.ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/OGRAM GHONGHSA TESHSIL AND DISTT.ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.NAWALSINGH S/O MOTALA BHILALA, AGEDABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURER/O GRAM GHONGHSA TEH. AND DIST.ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURER/O GRAM GHONGHSA TEH. AND DIST.ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.BHURLI S/O GULSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 67YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMGHONGHSA TESHSIL AND DISTT. ALIRAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMGHONGHSA TESHSIL AND DISTT. ALIRAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.IDU S/O GUTHSINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 37YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMGHONGHSA TEH. AND DIST. ALIRAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAMGHONGHSA TEH. AND DIST. ALIRAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VISHAL PATIDAR - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
1.SMT. KASHTURIBAI W/O DUNGARSINGHDODAWE CASTE BHILALA OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM ASADPURAAJIRAJPUR, TEHSIL AND DIST ALIRAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)DODAWE CASTE BHILALA OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM ASADPURAAJIRAJPUR, TEHSIL AND DIST ALIRAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHCOLLECTOR, ALIRAJPUR, DISTRICT ALIRAJPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AMIT RAVAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTNO.2/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission 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
Counsel for the petitioner heard on admission at motion stage.
1. Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of theConstitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.9.2023passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Divisiion, Alirajpur in Civil SuitNo.29/2020, whereby the petitioner's application for obtaining opinion of thefinger print expert has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civilsuit for declaration of title and confirmation of his possession, partition anddeclaring the sale deed null and void. Respondent No.1/defendant has filed hiswritten statement and respondent No.2 did not file any written statement and thematter has been proceeded ex parte against the respondent No.2. During thependency of the trial, petitioners have filed an application (Annexure P/4) forobtaining opinion of finger print expert regarding the fingerprint of plaintiffThavli Bai and witness Umar Singh. Respondent opposed the same by filingwritten reply. The court below after hearing both the parties, vide order dated26.9.2023 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Therefore, beingaggrieved by the impugned order, petitioners have preferred this miscellaneouspetition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orderpassed by the trial Court is against the law and procedure. Petitioners areilliterate villagers and belongs to the tribal community. Sale deed has beenexecuted with their forged fingerprints, therefore, opinion of the fingerprintexpert is quite necessary for examining the genuineness of the alleged sale deed.
The trial Court has wrongly dismissed the petitioners' application. Hence, heprays that the impugned order be set aside.
4. Learned GA for respondent No.2/State submits that the impugnedorder passed by the trial Court is just and proper and not deserves for anyinterference.
5. From perusal of the impugned order dated 26.9.2023 it appears thatthe trial Court has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to call thefingerprint expert before the trial court and the matter has been adjourned for 21times before the trial court. Definitely the trial court has provided 21opportunities to the petitioners and that can be considered sufficientopportunity, but not a single time petitioners have remain present the fingerprintexpert before the trial court, without showing any sufficient reason for it.Therefore, it appears that the petitioners want to adjourn the proceeding of thetrial court without any sufficient ground. In view of the above, the impugnedorder passed by the trial court appears to be just and proper and not deservefor any interference.
6. Hence, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed at motion stage.
C.C. as per rules.
trilok
(ANIL VERMA)JUDGE