Without Understanding Their Meaning & Ratio, Judgments Are Being Bombarded On Court: Madhya Pradesh HC Deprecates Practice Of Citing Irrelevant Judgments
The Madhya Pradesh High Court deprecated the practice of citing irrelevant judgments before it.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum- Maintenance Tribunal where the Tribunal has passed an order to handover possession of the disputed property in favour of the respondent otherwise that order shall be implemented through the process of the Tahsildar.
The bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal observed, “It appears that without understanding the meaning and ratio of the judgments, they are being bombarded on the court by the concerned counsel, which has no application. I deprecate this practice on the part of the counsel to supply judgments without having any application.”
Advocate Anil Kumar Dwivedi appeared for the Appellant and Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the Petitioners argued that the disputed property in Survey was originally allotted to their grandfather in 1974, making it ancestral property. They contend that respondent No. 3, their father, has no exclusive right to the property and thus no grounds to evict them based solely on his status as a senior citizen. They further argue that Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, has been misapplied, as no property transfer occurred. The Petitioners claim to have built a temporary hut and run a business on part of the land, which they assert is government property, making the eviction order by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) improper.
The Court said that the petitioners have only one device and one motive to prolong the proceedings which they have been successfully doing since 2020, but that cannot be allowed to be at the cost of respondent No.3, who is a senior citizen and for whose protection, the Act of 2007, has been brought into force.
Accordingly, the Court said that the Petition deserves to fail and is dismissed as no cause of action or legal provision has been brought to the notice of the Court to substantiate the reliefs claimed by the petitioners.
Cause Title: Chakradhar and Ors. v. Collector/District Magistrate/Appellate Authority and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:46640)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Anil Kumar Dwivedi
Respondent: DAG Swapnil Ganguly, GA Priyanka Mishra and Adv. On Prakash Dwivedi
