SHAKUNTALA AND OTHERS Vs. SITABAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter parties were heard on the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Bench.

(2.) Admittedly, except the order Annexure P/1 dated 29.12.1990, whereby the Board of Revenue passed the revisional order under Section 50 of M.P.Land Revenue Code, all other orders were passed beyond/outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. Thus, the singular question involved for adjudication is whether this would give rise to a cause of action on which this Court may entertain this petition.

(3.) Shri K.N.Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners by placing reliance on sub-Article (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, submits that even if a part of cause of action arises within the territory of this Bench, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He placed reliance on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and another, 2004 6 SCC 254. He placed heavy reliance from paragraphs 27 to 29 of the said judgment. He also placed reliance on Devendra Bahadur Singh vs. State of M.P. and four others, 1989 MPJR 721; Vishnu Agrawal vs. State of MP, 2009 3 MPLJ 39 and State of MP vs. Shabir Khan and others, 2006 2 MPLJ 50.