IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) OF 2017

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising out of

the Impugned Judgment and Order Dated 03.05.2017 passed
in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016 by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Munna Lal Soni …Petitioner

Versus

Nand Lal Soni & Ors. …Respondents

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

With

I.A. No. of 2017 Application for Condonation of

Delay.

I.A. No. of 2017 Application for Exemption from

filing Official Translation of the
Documents

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: DEVENDRA SINGH

 INDEX

SL. NO. Particulars ofPage No. of part toRemarks

Document which in belong

Part 1 Part II
(Contents (Contents
of Paper of file
Book) alone)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

1.

2. O/R Limitation A A

3. Listing Performa A1-A2 A1-A2

4. Cover Page of Paper A-3

Book
5. Index of Record of A-4
Proceedings
6. Limitation Report A-5
prepared by the Registry
7. Defect List A-6

8. Note Sheet NS1 to

9. Synopsis and List of B-

Dates
10. Impugned Judgment
and Order Dated
03.05.2017 passed in
Writ Petition No. 183 of
2016 by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur
11. Special Leave Petition
with affidavit

12. APPENDIX
Order 26 Rule 1 and
rule 4 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908

13. Annexure P/1

True Translated copy of
the Civil Suit No. 354
 A/13 before the Civil
Judge Class-2, Tehsil
Churhat, District Sidhi
(MP) dated 21.03.2005.
14 Annexure P/2
True Translated copy of
the Written statement
dated 21.10.2013 by
Respondent No. 1 to the
Civil Suit No. 354 A/13
filed before the Civil
Judge Class-2, Tehsil
Churhat (now Rampur
Naikin), District Sidhi
(MP)
15. Annexure P/3
True Translated copy of
the Order dated
17.11.2015 passed in
Application Under
Section 151 CPC filed in
the Civil Suit No. 354
A/13, by the Civil Judge
Class-2, Tehsil Rampur
Naikin (previously
Churhat), District Sidhi
(MP)
16. Annexure P/4
True Translated copy of
the Written statement
dated 17.11.2015 filed
by Respondent No. 3
and 4 to the Civil Suit
No. 354 A/13 filed
before the Civil Judge
Class-2, Tehsil Rampur
Niakin (previously
Churhat), District Sidhi
(MP)
17 Annexure P/5
True Translated copy of
the Application Under
 Order 26 Rule 1 CPC
dated 08.12.2015 filed
in the Civil Suit No. 354
A/13 filed before the
Civil Judge Class-2,
Tehsil Churhat (Now
Rampur Naikin), District
Sidhi (MP)
18. Annexure P/6
True Translated copy of
the Order dated
08.12.2015 passed in
Application Under Order
26 Rule 1 CPC filed in
the Civil Suit No. 354
A/13, by the Civil Judge
Class-2, Tehsil Churhat
(Now Rampur Naikin),
District Sidhi (MP)

19. Annexure P/7

True Typed copy of the
Writ Petition No. 183 of
2016 dated 04.01.2016,
filed in the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur

20. IA No_______of 2017

Application for
Condonation of Delay

21 IA No_______of 2017
Application for
impleading LRs of
Deceased Respondent
No. 3/Defendant No.4
22. IA No _______of 2017
Application for
exemption from filling
official translation
23. Vakalatnama

SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner has preferred the present Special Leave Petition

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising out of

the Impugned Judgment and Order Dated 03.05.2017 passed

in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016 by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby vide cryptic order the Writ

Petition of the Petitioner was erroneously dismissed.

In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the

legality and validity of the order dated 08.12.2015, passed in

Civil Suit No. 354A/13, whereby the Civil Judge Class II,

Tehsil Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi (MP) on the very first

date of hearing erroneously dismissed the Application filed by

the Petitioner Under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC seeking recording

the evidence of Petitioner by Local Commission, as Petitioner

being old aged about 88 years and is unable to present

himself for evidence.

IN brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed suit

No. 354A/13 for Declaration and Permanent Injunction, in

the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Tehsil Churhat (now

Rampur naikin), District Sidhi (MP). The Petitioner/Plaintiff is

in undisputed occupation and possession of the suit property

since year 1965 falling in Khasra No. 736 admeasuring 0.85

hec. and Khasra No. 737 admeasuring 0.154 hec, totaling to

0.239 hec, in village Raikhor Tehsil Rampur Naikin, District

Sidhi (MP). However, the Respondent No.1/ Defendant No. 1

behind his back, got the wrong revenue entries on the alleged

basis of 1971 unregistered agreement remarks and for the

first time raised claim in the suit property, compelling the

Petitioner/Plaintiff to file the suit. After framing of issues the

Plaintiff evidence has to be led. However, due to physical

inability, as the Petitioner was aged more than 88 years could

not appear and therefore filed an Application Under Order 26

Rule 1 CPC through Power of Attorney on 08.12.2015 for

recording of evidence by appointing Local Commissioner.

However, the said Application was dismissed on the very

same day i.e on 08.12.2015. The Petitioner then filed Writ

Petition No. 183 of 2016. However, the Writ Petition was

dismissed vide cryptic impugned Order dated 03.05.2017,

without any application of mind. The Present Special Leave

petition is filed against the impugned Order raising following

Questions of Law:-

1. Whether the rights of the Petitioner/Plaintiff aged

about 88 years to lead evidence can be closed on the

basis of hyper technical and doctrinaire approach,

though it was held by this Hon’ble Court in the case

of Mahadeo Govind Gharge VS LAO (2011 (6) SCC

321) that the Civil Procedure Code is law realting to

procedure and procedural law is always to facilitate

the achieving of ends of justice and must be

interpreted liberally and not for curtailing the rights?

2. Whether the provisions of Order 26 Rule 1 and 4

CPC are mandatory in nature or are discretionary,

thereby giving discretion to the Court to allow the

Plaintiff/Petitioner to lead evidence through Local

Commissioner, when it is matter of record that the

Plaintiff/petitioner is aged about 88 years and is

unable to move and attend the court for recording of

evidence?

3. Whether the Impugned order passed by High Court

is erroneous and suffers from non application of

mind, as the High Court vide cryptic order has

simply endorsed the Order of the Trial Court,

 without adverting to considering the entire case or

even the Application filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner?

Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

LIST OF DATES

DATE PARTICULARS

Since 1965 The Plaintiff/Petitioner is in occupation and

possession and also residing (by

constructing a house) in the suit property,

to the knowledge of the Respondents, in

village Raikhor, Tehsil Rampur Naikin,

Distirct Sidhi (MP) falling in new khasra

no.736 area 0.85 hec. and Khasra no. 737

area 0.154 total area 0.239 hec.

21.03.2005 The Respondent No. 1 got the entries

recorded in his name behind the back of the

Petitioner/Plaintiff in respect of suit

property which is still remaining in the

possession and occupation of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff/Petitioner was

constrained to file the Civil Suit No. 354

A/13 before the Civil Judge Class-2, Tehsil

Churhat, District Sidhi (MP), for Declaration

and permanent injunction. True Translated

copy of the Civil Suit No. 354 A/13 before

the Civil Judge Class-2, Tehsil Churhat,

 District Sidhi (MP) dated 21.03.2005 is filed

and marked as Annexure P/1

(at Pages ____ to ____)

After reorganization of District Court and

Note:-
opening of the New Courts in Tehsil Rampur

Naikin, the matter was transferred from the

Court in Tehsil Churhat to Tehsil Rampur

Naikin, Distirct Sidhi (MP)

21.10.2013 The Defendant No.1 /Respondent No. 1 filed

the Written statement to the suit No.

354A/13, after the lapse of more than 8

years. True Translated copy of the Written

statement dated 21.10.2013 by Respondent

No. 1 to the Civil Suit No. 354 A/13 filed

before the Civil Judge Class-2, Tehsil

Churhat (now Rampur Naikin), District

Sidhi (MP) is filed and marked as Annexure

P/2

(at Pages ____ to ____)

17.11.2015 THE LRs of deceased Defendant No.

4/Respondent No. 3 and 4, vide order dated

17.11.2015 passed in the Civil Suit No. 354

A/13, by the Civil Judge Class-2, Tehsil

Churhat (Now Rampur Naikin), District

Sidhi (MP) allowed to file their written

statement. The Respondent No. 3 and 4

herein thereafter the permission from the

 Court, filed their Written Statement to the

civil suit filed by the Plaintiff. True

Translated Copy of the Order dated

17.11.2015 passed Application Under

Section 151 CPC filed in the Civil Suit No.

354 A/13, by the Civil Judge Class-2, Tehsil

Rampur Naikin (previously Churhat),

District Sidhi (MP) is filed and marked as

Annexure P/3. (at Pages ____ to ____)

True Translated copy of the Written

statement dated 17.11.2015 filed by

Respondent No. 3 and 4 to the Civil Suit No.

354 A/13 filed before the Civil Judge Class-

2, Tehsil Churhat (now Rampur Niakin),

District Sidhi (MP) is filed and marked as

Annexure P/4

(at Pages ____ to ____)

08.12.2015 The Plaintiff/Petitioner being aged about 88

years and unable to appear before the Court

for recording of his evidence, filed an

Application Under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC

dated 08.12.2015, praying for recording his

evidence, through Local Commissioner. True

Translated copy of the Application Under

Order 26 Rule 1 CPC dated 08.12.2015 filed

in the Civil Suit No. 354 A/13 filed before

the Civil Judge Class-2, Tehsil Churhat

 (Now Rampur Naikin), District Sidhi (MP) is

filed and marked as Annexure P/5

(at Pages ____ to ____)

Note: The Application Under Order 26 Rule

1 CPC filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner was

dismissed by the Civil Judge Class 2, Tehisl

Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi (MP) on

conjecture and surmises on the same day

i.e. on 08.12.2015 and closed the right of

the Plaintiff to lead his evidence. True

Translated copy of the Order dated

08.12.2015 passed in Application Under

Order 26 Rule 1 CPC filed in the Civil Suit

No. 354 A/13, by the Civil Judge Class-2,

Tehsil Churhat (Now Rampur Naikin),

District Sidhi (MP) is filed and marked as

Annexure P/6

(at Pages ____ to ____)

04.01.2016 Being aggrieved by the Order dated

08.12.20215 passed by the Civil Judge

Class 2, Tehsil Churhat (Now Rampur

Naikin), District Sidhi (MP), the

Plaintiff/Petitioner through is constituted

Attorney filed Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016

before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur. True Typed copy of the Writ

Petition No. 183 of 2016 dated 04.01.2016,

 filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

at Jabalpur is filed and marked as

Annexure P/7

(at Pages ____ to ____)

03.05.2017 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur vide its order dated 03.05.2017

passed in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016,

without application of mind and vide cryptic

order dismissed the Writ Petition No. 183 of

2016. The High Court failed to appreciate

that the rules of procedure are made to

assist the court to do justice to the parties

and are not to curtail the rights of the

Parties, when the Petitioner is not at fault.

10.2017 Hence the present Special Leave Petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) OF 2017

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising out of
the Impugned Judgment and Order Dated 03.05.2017 passed
in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016 by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Position of Parties
In the High In this
Court Court

Munna Lal Soni, Petitioner Petitioner

S/o Devsharan Soni,
Age 88 Years,
R/o Gram & Tehsil Rampur
naikin,
District Sidhi (MP)
VERSUS

1. Nand Lal Soni, Respondent Respondent

S/o Late Ganesh Soni No. 1 No. 1
Age 43 Years
R/o Gram Rampur,
Tehsil Rampur naikin,
District Sidhi (MP)
2. Surendra Kumar Soni, Respondent Respondent
S/o Late Ganesh Soni No. 2 No. 2
35 Years
R/o Gram Rampur,
Tehsil Rampur naikin,
District Sidhi (MP)
3. Smt. Yashoda Respondent Respondent
Widow and LR of No. 3 No. 3
Brijwasilal Soni(since
deceased), R/o Gram
Rampur,Tehsil Rampur
naikin, District Sidhi (MP)
4. Jai Shankar Respondent Respondent
Son and LR of Brijwasilal No. 3 No. 4
Soni (since deceased), R/o
Gram Rampur,Tehsil
Rampur naikin, District
Sidhi (MP)
5. Krishna Kumar Soni, Respondent Respondent
S/o Late Mahesh Prasad No. 4 No. 5
Soni Age 47 Years, R/o
Village Kotaha,Tehsil
Gopadbanas, District
Sidhi (MP)
6. Radheshyam Soni Respondent Respondent
S/o Jagannath Soni No. 5 No. 6
Age 50 Years, R/o Gram
Sarafa Bazaar, Tehsil
Gopad banas, District
Sidhi

7. Chhotelal Soni Respondent Respondent

S/o Ramhit Soni, Age 54 No. 6 No. 7
Years, R/o Gram Kandwar,
Tehsil Rampur naikin, at
present Sarafa Bazaar,
District Sidhi M.P.

8. Smt. Moliya , Respondent Respondent

Wd/ o Mahesh Prasad No. 7 No. 8
Soni, Age 68 Years, R/o
Gram Kitaha (Sarafa
Bazaar), District Sidhi M.P.
 9. Ganga Prasad Soni, Respondent Respondent
S/o Munna Lal Soni, Age No. 8 No. 9
44 Years, R/o Gram
Rampur, Tehsil
Rampurnaikin, District
Sidhi M.P.

10. Sub Registrar, Sidhi, Respondent Respondent

Collectorate,
No. 9 No. 10
District Sidhi. (MP)

11. Collector, Sidhi, Respondent Respondent

District Sidhi (MP) No. 10 No. 11

TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Petitioner above named respectfully submits the

petition seeking Special Leave against the Impugned
Judgment and Order Dated 03.05.2017 passed in Writ
Petition No. 183 of 2016 by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur. Wherefore the Writ Appeal was
dismissed on the erroneous findings on its own
conjecture and surmises that the Petitioner is not a
competent witness and therefore, his right to lead
evidence was closed. It is submitted that the rights of
the petitioner has been erroneously curtailed by taking
hyper technical and doctrinaire approach, though as
settled by the Hon’ble Court that the rules of procedure
are to assist court to do justice to the parties and would
 not be for curtailing the substantial rights of the Parties.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

The following questions of the law arise for

consideration by this Hon'ble Court:

a. Whether the rights of the Petitioner/Plaintiff aged about

88 years to lead evidence can be closed on the basis of

hyper technical and doctrinaire approach, though time

and again it was held by this Hon’ble court that rules of

procedure are for aiding the parties for getting justice

and not for curtailing their rights?

b. Whether the provisions of Order 26 Rule 1 and 4 CPC

are mandatory in nature or are discretionary, thereby

giving discretion to the Court to allow the

Plaintiff/Petitioner to lead evidence through Local

Commissioner, when it is matter of record that the

Plaintiff/petitioner is aged about 88 years and is unable

to move and attend the court for recording of evidence?

c. Whether the Impugned order passed by High Court is

erroneous and suffers from non application of mind, as

the High Court vide cryptic order has simply endorsed

the Order of the Trial Court, without adverting to

considering the entire case or even the Application filed

by the Plaintiff/Petitioner?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2)

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave

to appeal has been filed by him against the impugned
 judgment and order Dated 03.05.2017 passed in Writ
Petition No. 183 of 2016 by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6

The annexures annexed along with the Special Leave

Petition are true copies of the Pleadings/Documents,
which formed part of the records of the case in the
Court/Tribunal below against whose order the leave to
appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:

That the petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid Impugned

Judgment and Order Dated 03.05.2017 passed in Writ

Petition No. 183 of 2016 by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at Jabalpur, and therefore prefers the present

Special Leave Petition on the following inter alia amongst

other grounds;

A. Because the High Court erroneously fell in error in not

appreciating that the rights of the Petitioner/Plaintiff

aged about 88 years to lead evidence cannot be closed

on the basis of hyper technical and doctrinaire

approach, as time and again it was held by this Hon’ble

court that rules of procedure are for aiding the parties

for getting justice and not for curtailing their rights.

B. Because the High Court erroneously not considered that

the provisions of Order 26 Rule 1 and 4 CPC are not

mandatory in nature and are discretionary, thereby

giving discretion to the Court to allow the

 Plaintiff/Petitioner to lead evidence through Local

Commissioner, when it is matter of record that the

Plaintiff/petitioner is aged about 88 years and is unable

to move and attend the court for recording of evidence.

C. Because the Impugned order passed by High Court is

erroneous and suffers from non application of mind, as

the High Court vide cryptic order has simply endorsed

the Order of the Trial Court, without adverting to

considering the entire case or even the Application filed

by the Plaintiff/Petitioner.

D. Because the High Court passed the impugned order in

great haste and without appreciating the law. The High

Court failed to see that the valuable rights of the

Petitioner cannot be curtailed, especially when the

Defendants took almost more than 8 years even to file

their respective Written statement. The provisions

nowhere mean to close the doors on the hyper technical

interpretation.

E. Because the High Court has failed to appreciate the

settled law that Procedural laws are hand maids of

Justice and are not made to close the doors of Justice,

as has been erroneously done in the instant case. The

Procedural laws act as lubricant and not as resistant in

the course of administration of Justice.

7. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

Because the Petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and

 injury. The Balance of convenience also lies in favour of

the Petitioner and the Petitioner has very good prima facie

case it its favour. It is submitted that the Petitioner would

suffer irreparable loss and injury as the Trial Court has

posted the matter for final hearing on 07.11.2017 and the

petitioner would become remediless.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed, in the interest of

justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to;

a. Stay the Operation of the Impugned Judgment and

Order Dated 03.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 183
of 2016 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur, and further stay the proceedings in Civil Suit
No. 354 A/13 pending before the Civil Judge Class 2,
Tehsil Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi (MP);

9. MAIN PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed, in the interest of
justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to;

a. Grant Special Leave to appeal against the Impugned

Judgment and Order Dated 03.05.2017 passed in
Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016 by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur; and

b. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of
justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS

IS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
Drawn by: Devendra Singh FILED BY:

(DEVENDRA SINGH)
PLACE : NEW DELHI
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed on:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Munna Lal Soni …Petitioner

Versus

Nand Lal Soni & Ors. …Respondents

CERTIFICATE
CERTIFIED that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to
the pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is
challenged and the other documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have
been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition.
It is further certified that the copies of the
Documents/Annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition
are necessary to answer the question of law raised in the
petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave
Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate
is given on the basis of the instructions given by the
petitioner/person authorized by the petitioner whose affidavit is
filed in support of the Special Leave Petition.
Drawn by: Devendra Singh FILED BY:

(DEVENDRA SINGH)
PLACE : NEW DELHI
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed on:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Munna Lal Soni …Petitioner

Versus

Nand Lal Soni & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DEALY

TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner above named has filed a petition

 under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising
out of the Impugned Judgment and Order Dated
03.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016 by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and the
contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of
the present Application and the same are not repeated
for the sake of brevity.

2. That the Writ petition was disposed off vide impugned

order dated 03.05.2017. Thereafter, the summer
vacation in the High Court started from mid of May
2017, till mid of June 2017. The Petitioner who is
incapacitated due to old age enquired from his attorney
about the proceedings in the High Court. The Attorney
then enquired form the Counsel in the High Court in the
first week of July 2017, from whom it came to his
knowledge telephonically that the Writ Petition has been
dismissed. Petitioner and his attorney are resident of
Rampur Naikin, a far off and remote place from
Jabalpur. Attorney of the Petitioner then in and around
23 July 2017 went to collect the file from the Counsel
from Jabalpur. The file was collected on 25-26 th July
2017.

3. That thereafter, on instructions from the Petitioner, the

attorney started searching for lawyer in Delhi, for
challenging the Order dated 03.05.2017. However, it
was difficult for the attorney to find a lawyer and finally
in the end of September 2017, the attorney found the
lawyer.

4. That while preparing for the case, the Counsel at Delhi,

asked for Plaint, Written statement and other
documents, which were not annexed with the Writ
Petition filed before the High Court. The Attorney then
collected the documents from the local counsel and
send it to the Counsel at Delhi.

5. That the Counsel for the Petitioner had given the papers
 for its translation. Thereafter, the person doing the
translation got sick and due to his illness, he finally
handed over the translated documents on 28.10.2017.
Due to the aforesaid bona fide reason there occasioned
the delay of ____ days in filing the Special leave
Petition, which was neither intentional nor deliberate
but because of the aforesaid bonafide reasons.

6. That the Present application is filed bona fide and in the

interest of justice

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be graciously be pleased to:

(a) Allow the present application and condone the delay of

____ days in filing the Special leave petition,

(b) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IS

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

Drawn by: Devendra Singh FILED BY:

(DEVENDRA SINGH))
PLACE : NEW DELHI
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed on:
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Munna Lal Soni …Petitioner

Versus

Nand Lal Soni & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL

TRANSLATION OF THE DOCUMENTS

TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner above named has filed a petition

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising
 out of the Impugned Judgment and Order Dated
03.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016 by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and the
contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of
the present Application and the same are not repeated
for the sake of brevity.

2. That the Petitioner seeks exemption from filing the

Official Translation of the Documents, which are filed as
Annexures P/1 to P/5, with the said Special Leave
Petition.

3. That in case the Petitioner is required to file the Official

Translation of the Documents, the same would delay the
filing of Special Leave Petition, which is being filed in
great haste.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be graciously be pleased to:

a) Allow the present application and grant Exemption from

filing the Official Translation of the Documents of
Annexure P/1 to P/5 ; and

b) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IS

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
Drawn by: Devendra Singh FILED BY:

(DEVENDRA SINGH)
PLACE : NEW DELHI
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed on:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Munna Lal Soni …Petitioner

Versus

Nand Lal Soni & Ors. …Respondents

 APPLICATION FOR IMPELADING LRS OF DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO.3/DEFENDANT NO.4 BRIJWASI LAL SONI

TO,
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner above named has filed a petition

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising
out of the Impugned Judgment and Order Dated
03.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016 by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and the
contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of
the present Application and the same are not repeated
for the sake of brevity.

2. That in the Writ petition No. 183 of 2016, inadvertently,

the LRs of Deceased Respondent No.3/Defendant No.4
Brijwasi lal Soni were not impleaded as Respondent
Party before the High Court. Though, the LRs were party
before the Trial Court much before the passing of the
Order dated 08.12.2015, which was impugned in the
High Court in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2016. The LRs
were permitted to file their Written statement vide order
dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Trial Court.

3. Therefore, by way of abundant caution the present

Application is being filed to implead the LRS of
Deceased Respondent No.3/Defendant No. 4 Brijwasi
Lal Soni, who had already made party in the Trial Court
and were also allowed to file their Written Statement.
 4. That the Present application is filed bona fide and in the
interest of justice

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be graciously be pleased to:

(a) Allow the present application seeking impleadment of

LRs of Deceased Respondent No. 3/Defendant No.4
Brijwasi Lal Soni,

(b) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IS

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

Drawn by: Devendra Singh FILED BY:

(DEVENDRA SINGH))
PLACE : NEW DELHI
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed on: