GAYATRI BAI MEENA Vs. SHILANYAS INFRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dtd. 13/1/2025 passed by 12th Civil Judge, Junior Division Bhopal in RCS No.235A/2015; whereby, the application submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff under Sec. 151 for recalling the order dtd. 18/8/2025 has been rejected.

(2.) It has been contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of land bearing survey No.404/2/2/2 admeasuring 0.65 hect. situated at village Barkheda Pathani, Tehsil Hujur, District Bhopal. It is averred in the plaint that from the perusal of the revenue records the petitioner came to know that part of her land bearing survey No.404/2/2/1, admeasuring 0.61 hect. has been transferred to respondent/defendant through a forged power of attorney dtd. 31/1/2023. On the basis of such transfer, a new survey No.404/2/2/2 admeasuring 0.65 hect. out of land 404/2/2/1 has been created in the name of respondent/defendant. It is further submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff has never executed such a power of attorney in favour of Hari Charan Meena and accordingly, prayed for declaration that the sale deed be declared as null and void.

(3.) It is submitted that after sometime the respondent transferee who has purchased the part of the land of the petitioner/plaintiff has also filed suit No.235A/2015 on 4/3/2015 seeking a declaration of title and possession over the part of the land sold to the transferee by the power of attorney. It is further submitted that the civil court on the application of the respondent/defendant in his suit No. 235A/2015 had allowed an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC by order dtd. 11/8/2015 (Annexure P/5), however, prior to said order, the petitioner had filed an application under Sec. 10 of CPC for staying the subsequent suit filed by the respondent/defendant as matter in issue is directly and substantially identical in both the suits. The said application filed by the petitioner/defendant in the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed vide order dtd. 18/8/2015 (Anneuxre P/4). It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed an application in her suit No.1021A/2014 for temporary injunction but same has been dismissed on the ground that in the later suit filed by the respondent/defendant, stay has been granted in favour of respondent/defendant and there arose an anomaly and conflict that in the suit of respondent/defendant, interim injunction has been granted but in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff the same has been rejected on the ground that in the later suit the stay has been granted in favour of respondent/plaintiff. It is the case of the petitioner that because of such anomaly and conflict, the petitioner's rights are substantially affected because the respondent/defendant is enjoying the stay against the petitioner/plaintiff and also creating third party right in the suit land. It is the case that the petitioner/plaintiff has also filed the previous suit and averred that the respondent/defendant has no title on the basis of the forged power of attorney. The petitioner/plaintiff is restrained but respondent/defendant is creating third party right in the suit land which may prejudice the interest of petitioner/plaintiff and also create multiplicity of the litigation.