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.
 2

2. A declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has

been previously instituted in any Court.

Matter not previously filed.

3. Detail of remedies exhausted :

No other efficacious remedy is available.

4. Delay, if any, in filing the petition and explanation thereof :

,

No delay in filing of the Writ Petition.

5. Facts of the case :

(i) This Writ Petition is by the Defendant No. 1. The

plaintiff respondent no. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 40A/2014 for
possession etc. against the petitioner and respondent no. 2 in the court
of II Civil Judge Class-II Maheshwar Dist. West Nimar on 12/5/2014.
The plaint allegations were that plaintiff is the bhumiswami of the
disputed agricultural land bearing S.No. 245 Area 4.521 hectares
situated in Village Ghatyabedi Tahsil Maheshwar Dist. Khargone. It
was alleged that she had purchased disputed land for Rs. 2,01,000/-
vide registered sale deed out of money received from her father. The
petitioner who is father in law of respondent no. 1 is in illegal
possession of the disputed land hence a decree for possession be passed
in her favor. The copy of Plaint is filed herewith as Annexure-P/2.

(ii) That the Petitioner- defendant No. 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 fathers fund. Hence prayed fro dismissal of the suit. The copy
of the Written Statement is filed herewith as Annexure-P/3.
 3

(iii) That thereafter issues were framed by the learned trial court. The
copy of Issues are filed herewith as Annexure-P/4. During the
pendency of the case, the petitioner filed an application U/O 11 R. 12
C.P.C. for production of Income Tax Returns of the respondent no. 1
and her father so that actual position can come before the court. The
copy of Application is filed herewith as Annexure-P/5. The
respondent no. 1 opposed the application by filing her reply. The copy
of Reply is filed herewith as Annexure-P/6.

(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. The
certified copy of Order dated 22/1/2016 is filed herewith as
Annexure-P/1. Hence this Writ Petition.

6. Grounds urged :

1. 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. 1 out of her fathers fund. It is submitted that if
respondent no. 1 had purchased disputed land for Rs. 2,01,000/- from
her fathers fund then it must be shown in her Income Tax Returns and
I.T. Returns of her father and further if she is actual owner then she
must have shown income from agriculture in her I.T. Returns. Hence
the documents were necessary for throwing light over matter and for
deciding the controversies between parties. The returns are in
 4

possession of the respondent no. 1 and her father. Hence it ought to

have allowed the application.

(b) as the learned trial court erred in not deciding the application in
its proper perspective particularly when application mentions the details
of relevancy.

(c) as the impugned order is against the law and decisions of

Honble Supreme Court.

(d) As its approach is too technical, perverse, prejudicial and

contrary to law and principle of natural justice.

7. Relief Prayed for :

(A) That, the order of Annexure P/1 be kindly ordered to be quashed

by Writ of Certiorari application filed by the petitioner i.e. Annexure
P/1 be kindly allowed.

(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. Caveat :
That, no notice of lodging a caveat by opposite party is received.

It is, therefore, prayed that order of Annexure P/1 dtd. 22/1/2016

passed by Ku. Vandana Malviya II Civil Judge Class-II, Maheshwar
Dist. West Nimar in C.S. No.40A/2014 Smt. Shruti Versus Motilal be
quashed by a Writ of Certiorari and application filed by the petitioner
be allowed.
Place: Indore Date: /2/2016 Submitted by,

Jitendra B.Mehta
Counsel for Petitioner
 5

THE HIGH COURT OF M. P. , BENCH AT INDORE

W.P. No. /2016

Petitioner : Motilal Agrawal

VERSUS

Respondents : Smt. Shruti Agrawal and another

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM WRIT

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner as under :-

1. That, the petitioner has fair chances of success in the Writ

Petition. The trial court has fixed the case on 20/2/2016 for evidence. 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, the Writ petition would be rendered infructous and many
complications would arise in the matter. Affidavit of Petitioner is filed
herewith.

It is, therefore, prayed that pending disposal of the

Writ Petition the further proceedings in the trial court i.e. II Civil Judge
Class-II Maheshwar Dist. West Nimar in Civil Suit No. 40A/2014 Smt.
Shruti Agrawal Versus Motilal Agrawal and another be kindly ordered
to be stayed.
Date /2/2016 Submitted by,

Jitendra B. Mehta
Counsel for Petitioner
 6

THE HIGH COURT OF M. P. , BENCH AT INDORE

W.P. No. /2016

Petitioner : Motilal Agrawal

VERSUS

Respondents : Smt. Shruti Agrawal and another

List of events

1999 The respondent no. 1 was married with son of petitioner.

1999 It was alleged by respondent no. 1 that she had purchased

disputed land after marriage out her fathers money.

2010 Son of Petitioner died.

18/3/2014 Notice was issued by respondent no. 1 to the petitioner.
12/5/2014 Present suit was filed.
19/1/2015 Written Statement was filed by the petitioner.
4/11/2015 Application U/O 11 R. 12 C.P.C. was filed by petitioner.
18/11/2015 Reply filed by the respondent no. 1.
22/1/2016 Impugned Order was passed.
/2/2016 Writ Petition is filed.

Indore /2/2016 Submitted by,

Jitendra B.Mehta

Counsel for Petitioner