1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE

Writ Petition No. …………/2016

Petitioner : Motilal Agrawal S/O Jagdish Prasad Agrawal
(Ori. Defendant Age - 62 Yrs, B/O Agriculture,
No. 1) R/O Village Karhi,. Tah., Maheshwar,.
Dist., Khargone (M.P.)
VERSUS

Respondents : (1) Smt. Shruti Agrawal Wd/O Vikash Agrawal
(Ori. Plaintiff) Age 36 yrs., B/O Household
R/O – 1, Main Street,. Mhow District Indore
(2) State of M.P. through
The Collector, District Khargone (M.P.)

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. Particulars of the order against which the petition is made:
(1) Date of order : 22/01/2016
(2) Passed in Case Number : Civil Suit No. 40-A/2014
(3) Passed by : Ku., Vandana Malviya
II Civil Judge, Class-II
Maheshwar

(4) Subject - Matter in brief : Matter arising out of Applications
U/O 11 R. 12&14 Section 151 C.P. C
for producing income returns of the
respondent.

No. 4. 40A/2014 for possession etc. . Hence prayed fro dismissal of the suit. It was alleged that she had purchased disputed land for Rs. Delay. (ii) That the Petitioner. Detail of remedies exhausted : No other efficacious remedy is available. 1. 5. in filing the petition and explanation thereof : . against the petitioner and respondent no. 2 in the court of II Civil Judge Class-II Maheshwar Dist. West Nimar on 12/5/2014. Matter not previously filed. The plaintiff – respondent no. The petitioner who is father in law of respondent no.000/- vide registered sale deed out of money received from her father. The copy of the Written Statement is filed herewith as Annexure-P/3.01. Khargone. 1 filed his Written Statement and he denied the plaint allegations and contended that he is possession of disputed land as owner of the disputed land and she has not taken any money from her father and she has not purchased disputed land from her father’s fund. 1 is in illegal possession of the disputed land hence a decree for possession be passed in her favor. 2. The plaint allegations were that plaintiff is the bhumiswami of the disputed agricultural land bearing S. A declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court.defendant No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. Facts of the case : (i) This Writ Petition is by the Defendant No. if any. The copy of Plaint is filed herewith as Annexure-P/2.521 hectares situated in Village Ghatyabedi Tahsil Maheshwar Dist. 2 2. 245 Area 4. No delay in filing of the Writ Petition. 3.

for production of Income Tax Returns of the respondent no.01.T. The returns are in . Hence the documents were necessary for throwing light over matter and for deciding the controversies between parties. The certified copy of Order dated 22/1/2016 is filed herewith as Annexure-P/1.P.C. Returns of her father and further if she is actual owner then she must have shown income from agriculture in her I. 6. The copy of Reply is filed herewith as Annexure-P/6. 12 C. Grounds urged : 1. (iv) That the learned trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner has not mentioned in his application that how Income Tax Returns are necessary for deciding the real controversies between the parties. 1 and her father so that actual position can come before the court. 3 (iii) That thereafter issues were framed by the learned trial court. During the pendency of the case. The respondent no. 1 had purchased disputed land for Rs. Hence this Writ Petition. 2. Returns.from her father’s fund then it must be shown in her Income Tax Returns and I.000/. 1 opposed the application by filing her reply. The copy of Issues are filed herewith as Annexure-P/4. It is submitted that if respondent no. That the orders of Annexure P/1 is bad in law and void on the following grounds :- (i) As it exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegality in dismissing the application of Annexure-P/5 by ignoring the defence of the petitioner that disputed land was not purchased by the respondent no. the petitioner filed an application U/O 11 R. 1 out of her father’s fund. The copy of Application is filed herewith as Annexure-P/5.T.

Jitendra B. Relief Prayed for : (A) That. 1 and her father. therefore. It is. 22/1/2016 passed by Ku. Caveat : That. Annexure P/1 be kindly allowed.S. (d) As its approach is too technical. Place: Indore Date: /2/2016 Submitted by. No. (b) as the learned trial court erred in not deciding the application in its proper perspective particularly when application mentions the details of relevancy. the order of Annexure –P/1 be kindly ordered to be quashed by Writ of Certiorari application filed by the petitioner i.e. 7. West Nimar in C. Vandana Malviya II Civil Judge Class-II.Mehta Counsel for Petitioner . (B) Costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioner or any other relief that may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court be kindly granted. 8. Shruti Versus Motilal be quashed by a Writ of Certiorari and application filed by the petitioner be allowed.40A/2014 Smt. 4 possession of the respondent no. Maheshwar Dist. prayed that order of Annexure P/1 dtd. Hence it ought to have allowed the application. (c) as the impugned order is against the law and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. no notice of lodging a caveat by opposite party is received. prejudicial and contrary to law and principle of natural justice. perverse.

BENCH AT INDORE W. That. II Civil Judge Class-II Maheshwar Dist. It is. P. Mehta Counsel for Petitioner . Shruti Agrawal and another APPLICATION FOR INTERIM WRIT It is submitted on behalf of petitioner as under :- 1. The trial court has fixed the case on 20/2/2016 for evidence. Date /2/2016 Submitted by.P. If pending disposal of this Writ Petition the further proceedings in the trial court is not stayed the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. prayed that pending disposal of the Writ Petition the further proceedings in the trial court i. Jitendra B. . Affidavit of Petitioner is filed herewith. the petitioner has fair chances of success in the Writ Petition. 40A/2014 Smt. …………/2016 Petitioner : Motilal Agrawal VERSUS Respondents : Smt. therefore. No. West Nimar in Civil Suit No. the Writ petition would be rendered infructous and many complications would arise in the matter.e. Shruti Agrawal Versus Motilal Agrawal and another be kindly ordered to be stayed. 5 THE HIGH COURT OF M.

C. Jitendra B. No. …………/2016 Petitioner : Motilal Agrawal VERSUS Respondents : Smt. 19/1/2015 Written Statement was filed by the petitioner. was filed by petitioner. /2/2016 Writ Petition is filed. 12 C.P. 1 to the petitioner. 22/1/2016 Impugned Order was passed.Mehta Counsel for Petitioner . . Shruti Agrawal and another List of events 1999 The respondent no. 18/11/2015 Reply filed by the respondent no. 1999 It was alleged by respondent no. P. 2010 Son of Petitioner died. BENCH AT INDORE W. 1. 12/5/2014 Present suit was filed. 1 was married with son of petitioner. 18/3/2014 Notice was issued by respondent no. 1 that she had purchased disputed land after marriage out her father’s money. 4/11/2015 Application U/O 11 R. 6 THE HIGH COURT OF M. Indore /2/2016 Submitted by.P.