Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCC/1261/2005 of SHANTI BAI Vs THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE COLLECTOR on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFOREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1261 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1.SHANTI BAI W/O TEJRAM PALIWAL, AGED ABOUT58 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MAHUA KENDRA, POSTKAUNSETA NAYAK, DIST. DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)2.SMT SUSHILABAI W/O KESHAVPRASAD PALIWAL,AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O PURANA BAZAR,ASATI,WARD NO.2, DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)3.SMT KANTABAI W/O RAMNIVAS PALIWAL, AGEDABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O TAMAKHU BAZAR,CHANDNI CHOWK, RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)4.BHAGWAN SHRI RAM MANDIR,THROUGHSHEBAYAT THE APPLICANTS NO.1 TO 3 RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH).....PETITIONERS(BY SHRI SANDEEP KOCHATTA - ADVOCATE)AND1.THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE COLLECTORDISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)2.THE TEHSILDAR RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH).....RESPONDENTS(BY SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)This application coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri JusticeRavi Malimath, Chief Justice 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
This petition is filed under Section 114, 151 & 152 read with Order 41Rule 1 C.P.C. to amend and modify the judgment dated 15.3.2005 passed inSecond Appeal No.85 of 1998.
2. The plea of the petitioner is that in the judgment of this Court dated15.3.2005 passed in Second Appeal No.85 of 1988, the observations madetherein in para 11 hurt his legal rights. The said para reads as follows:-
11. Before parting, I would like to mention that during pendencyof his second appeal, Jamna Bai had died. This Court does notknow by whom and under which order, who is looking after theaffairs of temple 'Shri Ram Mandir ji' and the lands in questionof the said temple. The State Government is free to passnecessary order in that regard by appointing "Vyavasthapak" inaccordance with law who shall look after the affairs of templeincluding the suit land of the said temple.of his second appeal, Jamna Bai had died. This Court does notknow by whom and under which order, who is looking after theaffairs of temple 'Shri Ram Mandir ji' and the lands in questionof the said temple. The State Government is free to passnecessary order in that regard by appointing "Vyavasthapak" inaccordance with law who shall look after the affairs of templeincluding the suit land of the said temple.
3. On hearing the contentions, we do not find any reason to interfere. Firstly, we have our own doubts as to how Section 114 or Section 151 of CPC wouldbe applicable. Section 152 of CPC is certainly not applicable since it refers toonly clerical and arithmetical mistakes. Nor Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC isapplicable in the instant case. In para 11, the Court has expressed its view withregard to the manner in which the affairs of the temple will be considered by theState in question. Assuming that the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he hasa remedy to challenge it in a manner known to law. It cannot be done in apetition under Section 114, 151 and 152 or Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC.
4. Hence, we do not find any good ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH)(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)CHIEF JUSTICEJUDGE