BHAIYALAL NAWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the Appellant for recording K. No. 173 /10 as his khudkasht was dismissed by the trial Court because he failed to produce a certified copy of the Khasra for the year 1948 -49, which was the relevant year for the purpose of a claim under Section 38 of the M.P. A.P. R. Act. The appeal before the Commissioner was summarily dismissed because there too the Appellants failed to file a copy of the required Khasra or, in alternative the Khasra for the year 1949 -50, to show that he brought the land under cultivation prior to the date of vesting. The orders of the two Courts below have now been challenged in second appeal.

(2.) FOR question No. (i) we might usefully refer to the observations of the Nagpur High Court in 1942 N.L. J. 396 (Balasaheb Devasthan v. Bajrangdas). In that case it was held that "where the Plaintiff fails to file a certified copy of an entry in the record -of -rights the Court should not dismiss the suit at once. The Plaintiff should be called upon to explain the omission and should be given an opportunity to file it. This view proceeds on the well known principle that the Court should not be astute to defeat a claim on a technical point of procedure without considering the case on merits". This decision was followed in another case (Sakharam v. Pandurang) by the same Court where the Plaintiff had not filed a certain document under a bona fide belief that the same was not relevant. It was held that there was sufficient cause for allowing him to file the document at a later stage". In yet another case (Mahadu v. Bhawanlal) the same High Court held that "if there is no cause which the Court considers sufficient for non -production of the certified copy of the record -of -rights at the proper stage, the Court is bound to dismiss the suit.

(3.) THE appeal is summarily dismissed accordingly.