regarding grant of stay and he prays for time.List tomorrow i.e. on 25/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 3 W.P.No.20/2015 24/8/2015 Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 4 W.P.No.452/2015 24/8/2015 Shri Ajay Assudani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to do the needful.List along with W.P. 7374/2014 after two weeks, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier to continue.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 5 M.Cr.C.No.7495/2015 24/8/2015 Shri P.K. Shukla and Shri MS.Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., Ghanshyam has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.764/2015 registered by police station Chandan Nagar, District Indore for offence under Sections 304- B, 498-A/34 of the I.P.C.Counsel for the applicant has candidly admitted the fact that this is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant Ghanshyam, who was the father-in-law of the deceased.The first application has been dismissed on the ground that the challan has not been filed and now the challan has been filed.Counsel submitted that the allegation against the present 6 applicant regarding demand of schooty was for the benefit of the daughter-in-law.Counsel further submitted that the applicant is a businessman and his entire family is suffering due to his arrest.Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed since the challan has been put up and the applicant is no longer required for further investigation and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 8 W.P.No.5718/2015 24/8/2015 Shri R.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri V.P. Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent/PSC on advance notice.Heard on admission and interim relief.Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the petitioner had appeared for the examination of Ayurved Medical Officer and he has qualified in the written examination.However, her candidature has been cancelled by the respondent on the ground that he could not file the relevant documents for the interview and there is only one day delay occasioned in filing the documents.Hence, Counsel prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the ensuing interview of the said examination.In view of the above, it is directed that the respondents shall allow the petitioner to appear in the ensuing interview, if otherwise qualified and on presentation of the relevant documents, but the result of the interview shall be kept in abeyance subject to this petition.Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply within four weeks.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 10 M.Cr.C.No.6972/2015 24/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the applicants Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioners has been illegal and civil remedy was available to the complainant.Counsel placed reliance on Rajib Ranjan and others vs R. Vijaykumar (2015)1 SCC 513 whereby the Apex Court has held that it could be an abuse of process of law when civil case converted into criminal and filling of criminal complaint by party after losing battle in civil litigation; and as in present case it was held to be misuse and abuse of process of law and hence, complaint in 11 present case is also liable to be quashed.In view of the above, let nothing coercive like arrest be done against the present petitioners till the next date of hearing.List on 25/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 12 M.Cr.C.No.6981/2015 24/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the applicants.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioners has been illegal and civil remedy was available to the complainant.Counsel placed reliance on Rajib Ranjan and others vs R. Vijaykumar (2015)1 SCC 513 whereby the Apex Court has held that it could be an abuse of process of law when civil case converted into criminal and filling of criminal complaint by party after losing battle in civil litigation; and as in present case it was held to be misuse and abuse of process of law and hence, complaint in 13 present case is also liable to be quashed.In view of the above, let nothing coercive like arrest be done against the present petitioners till the next date of hearing.List on 25/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.29/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Benudhar Parida, learned Counsel for the applicant.By this M.C.C. under Order 41 Rule 19 of CPC, the applicant has prayed for restoration of 14 M.A.No.583/2013, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non-payment of Court fees in time.Counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal was dismissed as per order dated 15/9/2014 and the applicant was not aware that the appeal has been dismissed for want of deficit Court fee.Counsel has candidly admitted that the appeal has been put up before the Taxing Officer and as per report of the Taxing Officer the appeal was listed before the Court and the Court has granted three months' time to pay the deficit court fees.Now the appellant is willing to pay the deficit court fee according to the newly amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.Considering the entire facts of the case, I find that the appellant is dilly-dallying the payment of Court fees according to the newly amended Court Fee Act. In view of the above, the applicant/appellant is 15 directed to give an undertaking in writing before the Principal Registrar of this Court regarding the fact that applicant/appellant shall be paid the deficit Court fees, according to the newly amended Court Fee Act within two weeks.Subject to which, Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 16 M.C.C.No.444/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Avinash Thorat, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on I.A.No.4522/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay 35 days occasioned in filing this present M.C.C. Counsel for the applicant submits that due to ill- health and inadvertence of the applicant, the delay has occasioned and hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and delay be condoned.Counsel for the applicant submits that First Appeal No.51/2006 was dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non-payment of process fee.The respondents are not being noticed and dilly-dallying the effect of service.In the present application also process has been paid, but there is no service report.In view of the above, the applicant/appellant is directed to give an undertaking in writing before the Principal Registrar of this Court regarding the fact that the respondents shall be noticed by publication on restoration of the appeal.Further subject to depositing a sum of Rs.300/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence and inadvertence the delay is hereby condoned.Thereafter the Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list the First Appeal at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 18 M.A.No.3319/2009 21/8/2015 Shri R.N. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A. No.3243/15, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for bringing the L.Rs.of deceased Dhanji respondent No.1 on record.The name of his son Anupamsingh respondent No.2 is already on record and the other L.Rs.have been named in the I.A.Counsel for the respondent No.2 has no objection.In view of the above, the application is allowed and name of the L.Rs.of the deceased respondent No.1 is taken on record.Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the cause title of the appeal memo.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to pay 19 fresh process regarding the newly added respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 20 S.A.No.464/2009 21/8/2015 Shri S.I. Ansari, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri M.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and prays for time.List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 21 S.A.No.529/2012 21/8/2015 Shri A. Siddique, learned Counsel for the appellant.List analogously after two weeks, as prayed (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.218/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.560/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 23 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.558/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of 24 process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 25 S.A. No.132/2014 21/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent submits that the application i.e. I.A. No.2797/2014 for stay has been rendered infructuous since possession is already taken by the appellant.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to verify the same.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 26 S.A. No.228/2014 21/8/2015 Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for one last opportunity to pay process regarding the L.Rs.By way of indulgence, last opportunity Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 27 M.A. No.1828/2014 21/8/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 28 F.A. No.92/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has filed cross-objection and reply to the application.Counsel for the appellant prays for a short time.List in the week commencing from 7//9/2015, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 29 S.A. No.1245/2005 21/8/2015 Shri Abhishekh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri S. Mukati, learned Counsel for the LRs.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.List on 3/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 30 M.Cr.C. No.6411/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the applicant/State.Counsel for the applicant has prayed for grant of time to file an application for condonation of delay.He submitted that the present petition is barred by only a single day.In view of the above, the delay is hereby condoned and the present petition is taken up for hearing.Briefly stated; the facts of the prosecution case are that the land of complainant Jagdish and his elder brother Moolchandra was adjacent and in between the 31 land there was a Babool tree and its root came into the field.On 17/5/2015 when Jagdish was cutting the roots of the Babool tree, Moolchandra, the elder brother of Jagdish, along with his nephew Gangaram and Prakash started hurling filthy abuses at him.On being asked to stop abusing, accused Moolchandra snatched the axe from him and assaulted him on the right hand.Accused Prakash and Gangaram assaulted the complainant with lathi.One Pappu and Mangilal intervened to pacify the matter.The complainant reported the matter at police station Ringnod.Crime was registered at No.89/05 for offence under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506 of the IPC.The investigation was launched and the accused persons were arrested and the offence was registered against the accused and they were duly committed to their trial.The accused abjured their guilt and they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter.On considering the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the accused Moolchandra for offence 32 under Section 294, 324 & 506/34 of the IPC.However, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused Prakash and Gangaram from the offence as hereinabove stated.Being aggrieved, the applicant/State has filed the present application for grant of leave to file appeal.Counsel for the applicant/State has urged the fact that there was ample evidence available on record, despite which the trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondents/accused.Counsel submitted that the trial Court had ignored the testimony of P.W.4 Tejsingh, who has supported prosecution case.In the testimony of P.W.2 Dr. Arvind Verma, Medical Officer, Government hospital, Jaora, he has stated that on the examination of the complainant it was found that as per injury No.1 there was a contusion of 6 x 2 cm on his thigh, injury No.2 was scratch 4 x 1.5 cm on the paw of left leg and injury No.3 was a lacerated wound 1.5 x 3 cm on the back side of the right upper arm and 33 the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.The injuries No.1 & 2 were simple in nature, however, for the injury No.3 the doctor advised for X-ray.And under these circumstances there was no need to disbelieve the evidence.Hence, Counsel prayed that the application for leave to file appeal be allowed.On considering the above submissions, I find that the lower Court had scrutinized the evidence available on record and the impugned judgement is impeccable and it does not call for any interference.The submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant State are without substance, primarily because, the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove its case.The presence of the accused respondents in the place of occurrence has been doubted which the prosecution has failed to dispel.According to paragraph 20 of the impugned judgement the lower Court has categorically observed that complainant Jagdish in his cross- examination admitted that accused respondent 34 Moolchand was alone at the time of cutting the root of Babool tree and accused respondents Prakash and Gangaram were not present at the place of occurrence.Similarly, it has been stated by D.W. Rukhnath that the accused Moolchandra was working in his field and after the complainant Jagdish fell on the tree before accused respondents Prakash and Gangaram had come there.Thus, the presence of these accused respondents at the place and time of occurrence is doubtful.Similarly, the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant is concerned, except a single injury sustained by the complainant on his leg, all the other injuries are simple in nature.Moreover, the dispute pertains to agricultural land between the related parties, which has been admitted in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment of the lower Court.Enmity is a double edged sword and the defence of the accused cannot be dispelled.And hence, the lower Courts had rightly acquitted the accused respondents.There was 35 no sufficient evidence on record for the conviction of the accused respondents.The evidence in order to sustain conviction must be unshakable and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.I have no hesitation in concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court.The application is without merit and hence the leave to file appeal is rejected and there, the present M.Cr.C.is dismissed as such.as per rules.Besides, in view of the above, it is also directed that till then no coercive action be taken against the appellant by the executing Court and needless to say the executing Court shall also take into consideration the accident of the appellant on humanitarian ground.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 38 M.Cr.C.No.7496/2014 20/8/2015 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Both the Counsel for the respondents did not agree to the suggestion put forth by this Court to solve the dispute.Counsel for the applicants prays for a short time to seek instructions.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicants.List for disposal on 7//9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 39 Judge moni 40 W.P.No.3521/2015 20/8/2015 Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shyam Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State submits that he would like to enquire whether the work orders have been issued or not?By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List for disposal on 25/8/2014, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 41 Cri.A. No.728/2002 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Appellant No.2 Pawan s/o Chunnilal has been produced in proper custody by Head constable Abdul Sayed,325 and Constable Raju Savle 851, DRP Line,Khargone.The appellant was absent since he was in custody for some other offence and non-bailable warrant has been issued for his arrest.Since no one appears on behalf of the appellant, the Police officials are directed to be take back the appellant in proper custody, to undergo the remaining sentence.In view of the above, earlier order of suspension of sentence is hereby recalled.However, Counsel for the appellant is granted liberty to move fresh 42 application for grant of suspension of sentence, if he deems necessary under the circumstances.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1924/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Bharat Malviya, learned Counsel for the appellants.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellants Ramcharan, Rameshwar and Rambabu are present in person.Heard on I.A. No.6142/2015, which is an application for condonation of absence of the appellants.The appellants submits that there was some death 43 in the their family and hence they could not appear before this Court on the date set by this Court Registry.The appellants are directed to mark their presence today and they are also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 29/9/2015 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 44 M.Cr.C. No.5774/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State on advance notice.Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time to argue the matter.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A. No.1095/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Nitesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State on advance notice.Heard on admission.Call for the record.List after receipt of the record.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A. No.1028/2005 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Report of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant indicates that the appellant has left the place with his family.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two 46 weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge S.A.Nos.1326/2005 and 1343/2005 20/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time to file reply to the I.A.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted 47 to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A. No.385/2010 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.440/2010 20/8/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Hence, Counsel prayed that extension of time be granted to the appellant since the order dated 26/4/2010 is still in existence.In view of the above, it would be more appropriate that the appellant move a fresh application for grant of suspension of sentence regarding the appellant No.8 and one week's time is granted to the appellant to do the needful.Subject to which, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1243/2011 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the 50 respondent/State.There is a report regarding service of non- bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant No.1 Santosh @ Santish @ Dadu, which indicates that the appellant No.1 was absconding.In view of the above above, perpetual warrant be issued against the appellant No.1 for his appearance before this Court as and when he is arrested.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A. No.415/2012 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.On perusal of the order sheet dated 15/5/2015, I find that the sole appellant Sumitra Bai has died.Counsel is again praying for time to verify the same.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List in the week commencing from 1st of September, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge 52 Cri.A. No.1229/2012 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.However, he was unable to avail the bail since he was in custody and on 17/10/2014 the appellant has already undergone the entire jail sentence and the sentence of fine to the tune of Rs.500/- has been paid.However, he has not been released on bail.And hence, the learned Trial Court Judge prayed for appropriate direction in this matter.In view of the above, I find that appellant may be 53 released, if he is not already released.In this light the present appeal stands abates and rendered infructuous due to efflux of time and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed as such.The P.U.D.is also stands closed and disposed off.A copy of this order be sent to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain C.c.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 54 W.P.No.11723/2012 20/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Respondent No.2 Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Respondent No.2 submits that the reply to the I.A. has been filed by the petitioner today only and hence he prays for a short time to argue the matter.List on 25/8/2015 on consent of all the parties.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R. No.1070/2013 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.R.No.690/2015 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.This Court had on 21/7/201directed to the applicant to move appropriate application for converting this criminal revision into the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, but the application is not available on record.None appears on behalf of the petitioner today also.It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the case.In view of the above, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge M.A.Nos.1447/13, 1443/13,1445/13,1449/13 and 1450/13 20/8/2015 Shri M. Negi, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the other respondents.Service report of the other respondents is awaited.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.275/2014 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Time was granted to the appellant for his appearance before this Court on several occasions.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned 59 C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.389/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Sachin Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Hence, Counsel prays for time to seek instructions in the matter.In view of the above, list in the next week, as 60 prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.450/2014 20/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondents is again praying for time to keep the respondent present before this Court.Time was granted on 29/6/2015 and 30/7/2015 to the Counsel for the respondent, however he was unable to keep the respondent present before this Court.In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrests against the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.696/2014 20/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Counsel for the respondents is again praying for time to keep the respondents present before this Court.Time was granted on 24/3/2015 and 16/6/2015 to the Counsel for the appellant, but he was unable to keep the respondents present before this Court.In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrests against the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.845/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Avinash Thorat, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for one last opportunity to keep the appellant present before this Court Registry.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.No further time shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1038/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellant.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two 64 weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1198/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Time has been granted to the Counsel for the appellant on several occasions.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge 66 Cr.A. No.1150/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Appellant Moin @ Golu is present in person.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Tanvir Ahmad, learned Counsel with complainant Shakeb Ahmad s/o Ikram Uddin present in person.Heard on I.A.Nos.9186/14 & 9187/14, which are the applications for taking the compromise on record and the matter can be settled.However, both the Counsel submitted that during the pendency of the appeal a compromise has been arrived at between the parties 67 and the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties.The affidavit in support of the applications have also been filed along with the applications.The complainant has stated before me that the matter has been settled amicably and he has no more grievance and he has no objection, if the offence is compounded.In view of the above, the compromise is taken on record along with the affidavit.Consequently, I find that the authorities relied on by the Counsel for the appellant pertains to quashment of proceedings in the Trial Court; whereas this application has been filed after conviction in this appeal.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and accordingly allowed by maintaining the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court but by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant.If the appellant has not paid the amount of fine, he will pay such amount within four weeks from today."However, the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the appellant having paid the fine amount.With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.as per Rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 71 The complainant has stated that he has no more grievance against the appellant and has no objection, if the compromise is taken on record.The appellant set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other offence.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 73 M.Cr.C.No.4884/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that direction be given to the Trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible.In view of the above, although this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as withdrawn the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 74 four months from today.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2778/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Bhupendra Singh, learned Counsel with petitioner prays for a short time on behalf of the senior Counsel.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 75 W.P.No.2426/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Ajay Gupta, learned Counsel with petitioner Smt. Sampurna.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Reserved for orders.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 76 M.Cr.Notices be returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 77 M.Cr.Considering the order of the Trial Court, Counsel for the applicant is directed to amend the cause title.He is also directed to pay fresh process regarding the respondent by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1802/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Asif Warsi, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to keep the appellant No.1 present before this Court.On two occasions, time has been granted to Counsel for the appellant.In view of the above, by way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to Counsel for the appellant to keep the appellant No.1 present before this Court.List on 15/9/2015, as prayed.A.No.1753/2013 19/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.Counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for time to keep the respondent No.3 present before this Court.Time has been granted on two occasions.In view of the above, by way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to Counsel for the respondent No.3 to keep the respondent present before this Court.List on 15/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 80 moni Cr.R.No.1212/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Petitioner Shanu @ Rais is present in person.Heard on I.A. No.3270/2015, which is an application for condonation of absence of the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been granted suspension of jail by this Court on 2/12/2013 and he has never misused the liberty granted to him.However, on 24/4/2015 the petitioner was out of station and hence he could not appear before this 81 Court on the date set by the Registry.Hence,Counsel prayed that the absence be condoned.The petitioner undertakes to remain present before this Court/Registry.For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the absence is hereby condoned.However, the petitioner is warned no such mistake would be repeated in future.The petitioner is directed to mark his presence today and he is also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 29/9/2015 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 82 M.Cr.C.No.6942/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Raghuvir Yardi, learned Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time to cure the defects, as pointed out by the Registry.One week's time is granted to the Counsel for the applicant to do the needful.Subject to compliance, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2669/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Zaffar Qureshi, learned Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company.At the risk of the appellant, the prayer is accepted 84 and service of notices to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is hereby dispensed with.Both the Counsel pray that the appeal be listed before the Lok Adalat.In the meanwhile, call for the record of the lower Court.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.6349/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Ajay Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.List for final disposal on 2/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.14102/2013 & 14201/13 19/8/2015 Shri R.T. Thanewala, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.for the respondent/State.Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for a short time.List on 31/8/2015 for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 86 Cr.A.No.210/2014 19/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Heard on I.A.No.8107/2014, which is an application for marking the presence of the respondent No.1 before the Trial Court.I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally.In view of the above, both the Counsel pray for a fixed date in the matter.List on 9/9/2015 for final disposal, as prayed.Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent.Heard on I.A.No.3937/2014, which is an application for condontation of 13 days' delay in filing this appeal.Call for the record.List for final hearing in the last week of October, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2832/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Sanjeev Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.A.G. for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6/State.Considering the submissions made by all the Counsel, I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.Petition is partly allowed.Direction be given to the competent Authority (State Government) to decide the appeal within four weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2953/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner.for the respondent/State.Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.Jurisdiction has been challenged by the respondents to file the complaint by the petitioner.In view of the above, Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to argue the matter.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 91 Cr.R.No.650/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Ajit Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for a short time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 92 Cr.Last opportunity of four weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to do the needful.List after four weeks, as prayed.No further time shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 93 Cr.A.No.2008/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Vikas Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant submits that no date has been given by the Registry to keep the appellant present before this Court and prays for a fixed date to keep the appellant present before this Court.List on 27/8/2015 for the presence of the appellant.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 94 Cr.R.No.815/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Deepak Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 95 Cr.R.No.824/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Nitesh Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for time on behalf of the senior Counsel for the petitioner.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter.List in the next week for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.831/2015 18/8/2015 Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Anirudh Gokhale, learned Counsel for the applicant.In view of the above, status-quo ante is restored and the proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.At this juncture, Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List for final disposal on 15/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.884/2015 18/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects have been cured.Registry to 97 verify the same.Heard on I.A.No.6064/15, which is an application for condonation of 463 days' delay in filing this petition.Issue notices of this I.A. to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 98 M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant prays one more opportunity to verify as to how much amount has been deposited by the applicant.Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the same.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicant to verify the same.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 99 M.Cr.C.No.6867/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant prays for time to cure the defect, as pointed out by the Registry.Subject to compliance, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 100 M.Cr.C.No.7240/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application since earlier petition is already pending consideration.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 101 M.Cr.C.No.561/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Nitin Vyas, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 102 Cr.964/2014 18/8/2015 Ms. Kiran Gohar,learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent 2/State.He prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 103 M.Cr.C.No.4921/2015 18/8/2015 This case is not to be listed before me.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.9511/12, 9040/13 & 6140/2013 18/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.Shri D.S. Gandhrav, learned Counsel for the Ku.Shraddha Singh, learned Counsel submits 104 that he has filed an application for intervention.Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.6151/13, 6152/2013 & 6153/2013 18/8/2015 Shri Sadanand Choubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.Counsel for the respondent No.3 is praying for 105 time.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.13/2014 18/8/2015 Ku.Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned Counsel for 106 the appellant.Shri Ramesh Vishwakarma,learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.7622/2014 17/8/2015 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ishita Agarwal,learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for time to file reply.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 107 W.P. Nos.7980/2014, 7981/14 and 7982/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Meena Saxena,learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to make compliance of provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, which is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.However, by way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 108 W.P. No.7992/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Anand Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder, which is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State.However, by way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.Interim relief to continue.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 109 W.P. No.8325/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time since the service report regarding the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 is awaited.Two weeks' time is granted.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 110 W.P. No.8489/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhishekh Singh Rathore, learned Counsel for the respondents.Reply has been filed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to argue the matter.List after two weeks for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 111 W.P. No.8710/2014 17/8/2015 Shri S.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.3,4 & 5/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 prays for one last opportunity to file reply.Counsel for the respondents/State prays that the name of the office of the Addl.Advocate General be reflected in the daily cause list.Registry is directed to do the needful.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 112 W.P. No.8870/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent No.13/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 submits that he has not received the annexures.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to hand over the same to the Counsel for the respondents within a week.Subject to compliance, Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply within four weeks.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 113 CONC No.122/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Viraj Godha, learned Counsel for the applicant.Issue fresh notices to the respondent No.1 & 2 on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after two weeks, as prayed.In the meanwhile, Counsel for the respondent No.3 is directed to file reply within two weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 114 Judge moni M.A. No.219/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to take appropriate steps regarding the unserved respondents.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to do the needful.Call for the record.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 115 moni CONC No.368/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Kamal Airen, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondents.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 116 W.P.No.1174/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Reply has been filed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 117 Cr.R. No.630/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Palash Chowdhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.List after two weeks, as prayed.No further adjournment shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 118 M.A.No.1535/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A.No.6115/15, which is an application for condonation of 9 days' delay in filing this appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and delay is hereby condoned.The appeal is taken up for admission.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.6116/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt 119 of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 120 Cr.A. No.1066/2015 17/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.6119/2015, which is an application for condonation of one day's delay in filing the appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.The appeal is taken up for admission.Call for the record.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 121 Cr.A. No.876/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Ramlal Patidar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.5032/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay.Counsel for the appellant is directed to hand over a fresh copy of the appeal along with the copy of the application to the Counsel for the respondent within three days.List in the next week for consideration of the application.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 122 M.C.C. No.662/2015 17/8/2015 Shri M.M. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within two weeks.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 123 M.Cr.C. Nos.6765/2015 and 7009/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the 124 respondent/State.Shri P.V. Bhagwat and Shri Prakash Shrivas, learned Counsel for the objector.Both these applications are taken up together since they arise out of the same cause of action and same crime number registered at same police station Vijay Nagar, Indore.By these applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., applicants Sanjeev s/o Kaidarnath Dhody and Arjun s/o Babulal Choudhary respectively have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.1254/2014 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 474, 465 and 120-B of the IPC.Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact it was a case of false implication.Counsel submitted that the case is civil in nature, despite which the prosecution is bent on giving it a criminal colour.Counsel submitted that applicant Sanjeev is the 125 promoted Director of M/s Silver Oak India Ltd. and he is the owner of 65% of the shares.Counsel submitted that the allegation against the applicants is that they have appointed five other persons as Directors of the company and including their names in the company register and uploading the same in the Internet and causing loss to complainant Bhupendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh states that he has never given his consent as a Director; whereas Counsel submitted that complainant Bhupendra Singh is not a Director of the Company and he has no right to challenge the application.Moreover, Counsel submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the offence by the complainant and the applicants have full chance of success in the trial.Counsel further submitted that the applicants are reputed businessmen of Indore and they would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if they are arrested.Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Both Counsel for the respondent/State and the objector have opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicants and submitted that the applicants were fully involved in the matter.Counsel submitted that there is one other case registered against applicant Sanjeev Dhody and there was grave allegation against both of them regarding forgery.Hence, Counsel submitted that the applicants did not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the application.At this juncture, Counsel for the applicants submitted that co-accused Himanshu has been granted time to surrender by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.6763/2015 and the present applicants would be satisfied, if such a direction is given in this matter also.On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.However, in the interest of justice and on the grounds of parity 127 alone, the applicants are better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court, Counsel for the applicants have expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be arrested immediately.In view of the above, the applications are partly allowed to the extent that the applicants shall surrender themselves within a period of four weeks from today i.e. on or before 16/09/2015 before the Competent Court and if the applicants shall file an application for regular bail before the Competent Court within the said period then the application shall be considered on the same day on its presentation, in accordance with law.I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court.It is also directed that till then the applicants shall not be apprehended or arrested.In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicants shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without 128 reference to this Court.With these directions, the application is disposed of.Original order be retained in the record of M.Cr.C. No.6765/2015 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. No.7009/2015 17/8/2015 In view of the detailed order passed by me today in M.Cr.C.No.6765/2015, this M.Cr.C.stands disposed of.A copy of the main order be retained in this File.By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Raghuvirsingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No.452/13 registered by police station Industrial Area for offence under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged that co-accused Hakem Khan has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.1857/2015 and hence he prayed that on the grounds of parity also the applicant is entitled to grant of bail.Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the parity cannot be 131 claimed as a matter of right.More so, Counsel submitted that there is single case for offence registered under Section 354 and 336 of the IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act against the present applicant.She further submitted that huge quantity of contraband has been seized from the possession of the present applicant and applicant is supposed to be a supplier of the contraband.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions and the fact that a huge quantity of contraband has been seized and the offence is grievous in nature, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant even if bail has been granted to the co-accused and parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right.This M.Cr.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 132 M.Cr.C.No.5172/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.However, Counsel for the applicant prays that the matter be listed in the next week.List on 25/8/2015, as prayed.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that liberty be provided to file fresh application after a period of six months.Counsel for the respondent submits that there are two other cases recorded against the applicant.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C.No.5667/2015 17/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that liberty be provided to file fresh application after a period of three months, if the trial is not completed.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.However, liberty as prayed for, is granted.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 135 W.P.No.2270/2014 14/8/2015 Shri Ashish Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1to 4, 11 & 13/State.The petitioner was beaten by them 136 mercilessly; besides he was taken in custody.He has incurred disability in the lower part of the body and he was unable to walk.The medical papers and newspaper cuttings and C.D. were attached with this petition.This Court had on 5/5/2014 directed the Inspector General of Police to file the report regarding the outcome of the enquiry that was to be established in his office.Both the Counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that the petition is not maintainable.However, I find that this Court had on 11/12/2014 directed the Dean, M.G.M. Medical College, Indore to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner.Today also the case has been vehemently argued for admission.On perusing the report by Shri Vipin Kumar Maheshwari, Inspector General of Police, Indore Zone, Indore dated 13/1/2015, it is found that he has also noted several irregularities, lacuna and lapses on the part of the Police Officers and the petitioner has 137 become disabled after the incident and several irregularities that had occurred during the investigation have been pointed out by the report.In view of the above, I find that the petition is required to be admitted for final hearing.There are several I.As.pending consideration.The first I.A.No.2844/2014 dated 7/5/2014 is taken up for consideration.By this application, Counsel for the petitioner has urged that even today the petitioner is not being provided proper medical treatment.Counsel urged that at least compensation be awarded by the State Government to enable the petitioner to take proper medical treatment.At this juncture, Counsel for respondents/State Ms. Mini Ravindran has submitted that such compensation is not available nor directed by the Court.However, on considering the above, I find the 138 Dean, M.G.M. College, Indore has already been directed as above on 11/12/2014 that the petitioner could approach the Dean,MGM, College, Indore.Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government hospital does not provide proper facility.Considering the above, submissions, the application is partly allowed.It is directed that the respondents/State Government/concerned Police Officers to see that the M.G.M.College, Indore and M.Y. Hospital,Indore shall provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner free of cost; primarily because it is only in the said medical college and also at M.Y. Hospital, Indore that the petitioner shall be able to avail such a good facility; considering the improvements that have been made recently at M.Y. hospital, Indore.In this light, the respondents concerned are directed to see that the case of the petitioner is properly recommended for proper medical treatment in 139 the M.G.M.College, Indore as well as M.Y. Hospital, Indore, as directed above.In view of the above, this application is partly allowed.List for consideration of the other I.As.after three weeks.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 140 W.P. No.4338/2015 and 4349/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners.These two petitions arise out the same impugned order and the same cause of action, and they have been filed by the two tenants against the common landlord, whereas W.P. No.4338/2015 pertains to civil suit No.6-A/15 and W.P. No.4339/2015 pertains to 5- A/15 and a common order has been passed under identical situation and hence both the petitions are taken up together.This common order shall regulate both the petitions.By these petitions under 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by order dated 5/5/2015 and15/6/2015 passed by the 29th Civil Judge Class- I,Indore in Civil Suit Nos.6-A/15,5-A/15 dismissing the application for eviction.The plaintiff has resisted the application submitting that the issue framed by the Court after considering the objection of the plaintiff as well as the respondents.And that such an application is not bonafide but made it with an intention to protract 142 the proceedings.The respondents had in fact resisted the suit and hence, the issue is required to be framed on the point.Similarly by order dated 15/6/2015 another application filed under Rule 6 Order 16 of the CPC by the respondents was also dismissed.This application has been resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that whenever the matter has been listed for evidence by one reason or another the respondents had tried to prolong the trial.This application was also pertains to the dilapidated condition of the accommodation.Besides the Court had observed that the respondent tenant has resisted the ground and hence, the issue No.3 had been framed and on this ground also no fault can be found with the Trial Court's order.However, the costs as imposed by the Trial Court are set aside.With the aforesaid observations, both the petitions are hereby dismissed as such.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 145 W.P. No.4349/2015 10/8/2015 In view of the detailed order passed by me today in W.P.No.4338/2015, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.A copy of the main order be retained in this File.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 146 147 W.A.No.210/2015 14/8/2015 Ku.Neetu Pokharan Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri M.S. Dwivedi and Shri Akash Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel for the Caveator.Learned Counsel for the Caveator has placed an order dated 3/8/2015 passed by the Urban Development and Environmental Department, Bhopal indicating that the appellant's cause has been satisfied and she has been promoted and her transfer order has been cancelled and the lis has come to an end.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has no more grievance and she has resumed the charge of CMO at Maheshwar, District Khargone In view of the above, the present writ appeal is disposed of.With the aforesaid, the petition bearing No.W.P. No. 3331/2015 is also hereby rendered infructuous and dismissed as such.No costs.as per rules.Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant and prays for time.List after four weeks, as prayed.Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.None for the complainant.Although several allegations have been made in the application, Counsel for the respondent/State is directed to verify whether any police report has been filed by the complainant/objector.None appears on behalf of the complainant/objector to press this application.Last opportunity is granted to the complainant/objector.List after two weeks, as prayed.Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.Prayer is accepted.List after two weeks, as prayed.Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for 153 the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Safaiwala (Sweeper) has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid 155 employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 156 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1933/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of cattle Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 159 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 160 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1932/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 163 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 164 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1930/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of cattle Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 167 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 168 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1929/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 171 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 172 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1927/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 175 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 176 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1926/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 179 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 180 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra); the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1260/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 183 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed."In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 184 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra); the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.232/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2170/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.246/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2204/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.241/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2191/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.251/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2217/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.261/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2255/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.267/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2273/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.288/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2368/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.238/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., Madandas has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.52/2015 registered by police station Suwasara, District Mandsaur for offence under Sections 376, 506(II) of the I.P.C., u/s 3(II)(v) of the SC & ST Act and 3/ 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesCounsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a false case and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence.Counsel further submitted that it was an affair of heart and the applicant himself is 18 years of age and the prosecutrix had gone with the applicant on consent and on being recovered she turn around and implicated the applicant.Moreover, the prosecutrix has turned hostile 194 in Court.The parents of the prosecutrix have also not supported the prosecution case.Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the prosecutrix was only 15 to 16 years of age, according to her mark-sheet.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and looking to young age of the applicant, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 195 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.6449/2015 13/8/2015 Shri Imran Bangush and Shri Vivek Singh, learned 196 Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this application.However, he prays for direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of one year from today.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1471/2011 13/8/2015 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. 4934/2015, which is the 6th application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding the appellant.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application.However, he prays for early hearing of the appeal now the appellant is in custody for almost four years.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, the application is dismissed as not pressed.List for final hearing in the last week of October, 2015, as prayed.Shri M.M. Bohra, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents.Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh process regarding the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue fresh notices to the respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondents.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody for another offence.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.Heard on I.A.No.5678/2015, which is an application for re-calling of the earlier order of non- bailable warrant issued against the sole appellant.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not appear before this Court since he was in custody in another offence and his is still in custody at Mandleshwar jail.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.5925/2012 13/8/2015 Shri Iqbal Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1,3 & 4/State.Counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for time to file reply.All the Counsel are directed to complete the pleadings.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 202 F.A.No.1057/2013 13/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Santosh Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents.The appeal is already admitted on 18/3/2014 for final hearing.Call for the record.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 203 M.C.C.No.687/2014 13/8/2015 Shri Prince Raghavan, learned Counsel for the applicants.None for the respondents.Counsel for the applicant undertakes to pay fresh process with correct address of the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue fresh notices to the respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the case shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.443/2015 13/8/2015 Shri S. Polekar, learned Counsel for the appellants.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Notices have been served on the respondent No.1, but none appears today.Heard on admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Call for the record.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.C.c.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1461/2015 13/8/2015 Shri Kailash Kuashal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.It is a claimant's appeal.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with M.A.No.1463/2015 after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.619/2015 12/8/2015 Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.5976/2015, which is an 207 application for condonation of delay.248 days delay has occasioned in filing this application.Counsel for the applicant submits that due to ill- health and inadvertence of the applicant, the delay has occasioned and hence,Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and delay be condoned.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C. is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C., the applicant has prayed for restoration of W.P.No.7068/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non- payment of Court fees in time.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court fee could not be deposited in time due to financial constraints and she submits that now the applicant is ready to pay the court fees, according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the petition be restored to its original number.Counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.Thereafter the Registry is directed to restore the petition to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.It is further directed that the Registry shall accept the process fee and issue notices to the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Subject to compliance, list the writ petition after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.748/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for 210 the respondent No.1/State.Shri C.S. Panwar and Shri Harish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Heard.learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4Reserved for orders.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1167/2015 12/8/2015 Ms. Sangeeta Choudhary, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Lalwani, learned Counsel for the 211 respondent.Heard on admission.Although Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed for grant of stay since the case is almost at final stage and adjudication is necessary.In view of the above, the proceedings pending before the JMFC, Neemuch in Criminal Case No.1770/2010 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 212 moni Cr.120/2015 12/8/2015 Shri M.A. Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on I.A. No.4460/2015, which is an application for permission to serve notice on the respondent through humdast.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed.Registry is directed to prepare the notice regarding the respondent on payment of proper process and hand over the same to the Counsel for the petitioner within a week.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.4035/14 and 4331/2014 12/8/2015 Shri Akash Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Shri Ayushman Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4/Indian Oil Corporation.Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/ Jay Nakoda Petroleum.He prays for time 214 to file reply.Last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.8755/14 & 605/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondents prays for time to file reply.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the 215 respondents.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.List after four weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.246/15, 250/15 & 252/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents/State and 216 prays for time to file reply.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondents.List in the week commencing from 1/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.3770/14 and 3778/2014 11/8/2015 Shri Amit Panchal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.7175/2014 11/8/2015 Shri Amit Pardeshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.778/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Nitin Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to complete the pleadings.No further adjournment shall be granted.Interim relief to continue.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.1340/2015,1752/15,3953/15,3077/15,4195/15,4240 /15, 4263/15, 4265/15 and 4315/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Akshay Kelapure and Shri Ankit Kesharwani, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that identical petition bearing W.P. No.3953/2015 is listed on 17/8/2015 and prays for analogous hearing with that petition.Prayer is accepted.List analogously on 17/8/2015 for consideration of I.A.No.3449/2015, as prayed.Interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1488/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners/State.None for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file fresh process regarding service of notices to the respondent 221 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issued notices to the respondent within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1588/2015 11/8/2015 Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file fresh process regarding service of notices to the respondent 222 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issued notices to the respondent within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1715/2015 11/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for 223 the respondent No.2/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for a short time.List in next week , as prayed.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1589/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Benudahar Parida, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri M. Negi, learned Counsel for the respondent 224 No.3/Insurance Company.Suggestion of Counsel for the appellant that matter could be listed in the Lok Adalat, is dispelled since the respondent has filed cross-objection.In view of the above, list for final hearing after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.526/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Gaffar Mohd., learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.5720/15,which is the second 225 application for grant of suspension of sentence.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application.The application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.325/2003 11/8/2015 Ms. Megha Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents though duly served.Heard on I.A.No.3496/13, which is an application 226 for bringing the Lrs.of the deceased respondent No.3 Bherusingh on record.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the appeal memo within a week.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.324/2006 11/8/2015 None for the appellant.Bharti Lakkad, learned Counsel for the respondents.I.A. No.5992/15, which is an application filed by the respondents for vacating the stay.Last opportunity is granted to the appellant List in next Wednesday i.e.19/8/2015 , as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.3698/2006 11/8/2015 Shri M.S. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List tomorrow i.e. on 12/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.403/2010 11/8/2015 Mrs. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.4 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.Call for the record.Appeal is admitted for final hearing in due course.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.669/2009 11/8/2015 Shri Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.He prays for time to file application for reduction in valuation.Two weeks' time is granted.Subject to which, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.12343/2010 11/8/2015 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for one last opportunity to file reply to the petition.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent, failing which, the petition shall be heard without the reply.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.365/2011 11/8/2015 Ku.Chitralekha Hardiya, learned Counsel appellant.None for the other respondents.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.Heard on I.A. No.5967/15, which is an application for bringing the Lrs.of the deceased respondent No.5 on record.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the appeal memo within a week.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to pay process regarding the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue notices to the respondent Nos.3 & 4 afresh within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1586/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Gaurav Shriavastava, learned Counsel appellant.Two weeks' time is granted to do the needful.Other respondents are duly served and represented by 234 their Counsel.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.3962/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Aviral Vikas, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri R.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the petition submits that the reply is ready to the application for vacating of the stay 235 granted earlier and prays for time to file the same during the course of the day with copy to the respondents.Subject to which, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6032/2012 11/8/2015 Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.2022/2015, which is an application for interim relief.Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is in the connected petition bearing W.P. No.6053/2012, 236 which is listed today along with this petition, interim relief has already been granted.And hence, Counsel prayed that the same relief may also be granted to the present petitioner.The relief granted in the said petition i.e. W.P. No.6053/2012 thus:"Any allotment made by the respondents shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition."In view of the above, the same direction is also given in the present petition and the allotment shall be subject to the final outcome of the present petition.In the meanwhile, the respondents may file rely.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 237 moni W.P.No.11723/2013 11/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Respondent No.2 Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of one week's time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to do the needful.List after a week, as prayed.The respondents are free to proceed regarding the violation.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 241 W.P.Nos.11966/12 and 470/2013 11/8/2015 Shri Ankit Kesharwani, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.3870/2015, which is and application for taking additional documents on record.Counsel for the respondent submits that if any consequential amendments are required, the same be allowed.In view of the above, application is allowed.The documents are taken on record.However,the respondents are free to file any additional reply, if they deem necessary and which shall be considered at the time of final hearing.List for final disposal in the last week of September, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 242 M.A.No.754/2013 11/8/2015 Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A.No.5363/2015, which is an application for amendment in the cause title regarding reduction in valuation.Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the application within a week.Registry to verify the same.Although the appeal has been admitted on 19/6/2015; appropriate Court fees has not been paid.Registry is directed to verify as to whether necessary Court fee has been paid or not?(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 243 W.P.No.5341/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the respondents prays for a short time to seek instructions in the matter.List on 4/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5351/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Sumit Samvatsar, learned Counsel for the 244 petitioner.Heard on admission.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Issue notice to this I.A. also.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 245 W.P.No.5354/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week, failing which the present petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner prays for stay over the proceedings pending before the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore.In view of the above, the proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 246 W.P.No.5363/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Pankaj R. Sohani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated without giving opportunity of hearing.Hence, Counsel prayed that the same benefit be granted to the present petitioner also.In view of the above, the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week, failing which the present petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 248 W.P.No.5345/2015 10/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Both the Counsel pray for analogous hearing with W.P.No.5309/2015 tomorrow.List accordingly, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.447/2015 10/8/2015 Ms. Bhavna Sahu, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.It is a claimant's appeal.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 250 Second Appeal No.324/2011 Order passed on I.A. No.5060/2015 11/8/2015 By this application, appellant Kimtilal Jain is seeking for permission for repairing of the disputed property.Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the disputed property i.e house No. 95, Mahavir Nagar, Indore is in a dilapidated condition.Due to rainy season the water is logging in the passages and due to unprecedented rain on 21/6/2015 the parapet of the first floor had broken down and fell on the ground floor and it has become dangerous to human life and the property.On 24/1/2015 when the appellant was showing the property to the engineer for carrying out repair work, the respondent No.10 Nirdosh Kumar started quarreling with the appellant and threatened him and warned the appellant not to undertake any 251 repair work.And hence the appellant has moved an application before this Court and photographs of the recent position of the disputed property are also filed along with the application.Counsel submitted that an application has also been moved before the trial Court for seeking repair, but the same was disposed of with the direction that since the matter was pending before this High Court the order should be sought from the same.Hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and the appellant is willing to bear the cost and repairs and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and also in case of failure of this appeal, the appellant will not claim any compensation.Counsel vehemently urged that it was utmost priority to carry out the repair work and hence the application be allowed.Counsel for the respondents, per contra, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the appellant and submitted that the application was 252 without merit; primarily because it was prima facie proved by the photo that the parapet wall was broken by the appellant himself and he has put forth a different story for sympathy whereas the appellant has deliberately broken the parapet wall with an intention of creating a new situation in the garb of repairing the parapet wall.Besides more importantly Counsel opposed the construction stating that the answering respondent would be prevented to use the washroom/toilets constructed in back side of the disputed house.However, when the respondent stopped the appellant from making the construction, he quarreled with the respondent and hence the respondent has moved an application for grant of temporary injunction before trial Court.Although the application was rejected by the trial Court, the appellate Court was pleased to restrain the appellant from interalia changing the nature of the disputed property.Counsel also urged 253 that the appellant was further restrained from obstructing the path of the answering respondent to the wash rooms constructed in the back side of the disputed house.Hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions and considering the evidence on record, I find that any relief granted to the appellant would amount to affecting the merits of the case.Besides too many disputed facts have been raised by both the parties.Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that further construction would be required and he is willing to remove the construction if the respondent is found to be incorrect and loses the appeal.Considering the said submissions, I find that the application cannot be allowed at this stage and it creates further complications and multiplicity of proceedings and right of both parties are likely to be 254 affected.In this light, this application is dismissed as such.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 255 W.P. No.5091/2014(O) 04/08/2015 Shri J.B. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri S.K. Chourasiya, learned Counsel for the respondent.Briefly stated the facts of the case, Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the respondent, was not noticed regarding the application moved for conducting the suit as an indigent person.The impugned order, permitting the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person, was passed without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/respondents.The petitioners Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal, are the younger brothers of Yashpal Kaushal, who died early, and the present respondent Smt. Sumitra Bai is the widow of Yashpal Kaushal.The petitioners were living on rental basis in these two rooms and on the death of Yashpal Kaushal, Smt. Sumitra, the present respondent took over the house and being the close legal heirs the petitioners/respondents Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal were paying Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month respectively.Subsequently due to irregularities in payment of the rent respondent Smt. Sumitra asked them to vacate the premises.Hence, plaintiff Smt. Sumitra did not wish to continue their tenancy.She also stated that the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month, which was paid to her husband Yashpal Kaushal, is stopped by the petitioners/respondents.However, on the presentation of the plaint, the plaintiff has also stated that she is a widow lady and there is no income for her livelihood and hence she prayed for exemption from payment of the Court fee on the basis of the M.P. State Government Notification No.9-1-93-B-21 dated 1/4/1983, according to which any female person earning less than Rs.6,000/-per year is exempted from payment of the Court fee.Counsel however, urged the fact that no application has been moved by the plaintiff to sue an indigent person despite the order of exemption from payment of court fee.Counsel submitted that misstatement has been made by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is an indigent person.A report is not being called and straightway the plaintiff has been allowed to sue an indigent person.Counsel 258 submitted that such an order is contrary to the provisions of law which requires at least preliminary enquiry be held and it should be considered that whether the plaintiff was an indigent person, but nothing has been done.Counsel prayed that the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC have not been complied with, despite objection, by the petitioners/respondents and the impugned order has been passed.The certificate of the Tehsildar relied on by the plaintiff as well as the Trial Court was not very reliable and no opportunity of cross-objection has been given to the present petitioners/respondents.Hence, Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside.Plaintiff belonging to one of the categories mentioned in the Notification is required to present the plaint by making such a declaration in the plaint itself for grant of exemption and need not file the suit as indigent person along with application seeking exemption from payment of Court fees."Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.On considering the above submissions, I find that the single question for adjudication as whether the impugned order is correctly discarded the objection of the present petitioners regarding the plaintiff not having fulfilled the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC as to sue an indigent person? I find that the contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is contrary to the facts of the case.The application did not call to sue as an indigent person, but the applicant 261 claims for exemption from court fees as per the Notification dated 4/1/1983 and proper certificate of the Tehsildar has been filed.In view of the above, I find that the pleas of the petitioners are way off the question in hand.The order passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with Section 35 of the Court Fees Act and the Notification issued by the State Government.Besides, there is also competent certificate of the Tehsildar regarding the earning capacity of the plaintiff being below Rs.6,000/- per year and this light also the order does not call for any interference.With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed as without merit.C.c.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 262 W.P.No.8549/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent No.9/State.By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26/9/2014 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Dewas granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the petitioners/defendants to enter into the property.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners/respondents are the local residents of Dewas district and a Civil Suit was filed before the Civil Judge Class-II, Dewas for declaration and permanent injunction in respect the land and house situated in survey No.529 and 540 area 1.02 hectares and 0.30 hectares respectively.The land in question was owned by their predecessor in title of both the petitioners and the respondents.The petitioners had filed a written reply to the inunction application.That by order dated 6/8/2014 the Trial Court has dismissed the application with a specific finding of plea of adverse possession is not applicable against the co-owner of the property, because in second application, the respondents have taken the plea of adverse possession.Besides, the names of the 265 petitioners as well as the respondents were jointly recorded in the revenue records and hence, it cannot be said that the respondents are the absolute owner of the property in question.The revenue records also clearly negated the name of the petitioners that they were the co-owners of the property.Besides, the plea of the present petitioners was not considered.The impugned order dated 26.9.2014 is hereby set aside.Needless to say that it is directed that both the parties shall not alienate the property further and status-quo regarding the property as it exists today shall be maintained by both the parties; till the decision of the application afresh; by the trial Court on the ground of possession within a period of three months from today.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.5274/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Ashish Kanungo, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.With the consent of both the Counsel, this writ petition is heard and disposed of finally.ORDER By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the in-action on the part of respondents in granting the benefit of regular pay scale of Adhyapak Samvarg in the post of Senior Teacher, Teacher and Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.5000-175-8500, 4000-125-6500 and 3000-100-5000 respectively after completion of seven years of service."Today when the matter came up for hearing the only prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is to dispose of this petitioner directing the respondents to consider and take appropriate decision keeping in view the Circular dated 21.6.2001 (Annexure P/4) as Rule-7 of the Rules.The prayer appears to be reasonable.Accordingly without commenting upon the merits of the matter, I am inclined to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation with supporting documents before the Competent Authority of the respondents.On receipt of such representation the Competent Authority of the respondents shall take an appropriate decision on the said representation and pass appropriate orders in 272 regard to the petitioners' claim within a period of six months form the date of receipt of such representation.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.607/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.None for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/ driver & 273 owner.Heard on I.A.No.5960/2015, which is an application for condonation of 81 days delay in filing this application.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C.is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, the applicants have prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.2403/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non- payment of Court fee.Counsel submits that the liability of the Insurance Company is not disputed and the appeal is a claimants' appeal for enhancement.However, the court fee could not be deposited in time due to financial constraints.Counsel submits that now the applicants are ready to pay the court fee according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its 274 original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 275 M.C.C.No.609/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Anil Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.None for the respondent No.1/driver & owner.Heard on I.A.No.5958/2015, which is an application for condonation of 53 days delay in filing this application.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C.is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. Under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, the applicants have prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.1133/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order.However, the court fee could not be deposited in time due financial constraints.Counsel submits that now the applicants are ready to pay the court fee according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal in the next week, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 278 W.P. No.3734/2015 07/8/2015 Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.By this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 72(1)(a) of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Act, petitioner Suresh s/o late Shri 279 Basant Kumar has come to the Court with a limited prayer for issuance a writ of mandamus to the respondent to decide the petitioner's application for the change of time table of Regular Stage Carriage Permit SCP No.19/14/Dhar for the route Dhar to Indore via Lebad, Betma.The application was filed on 15.05.2015 and is still pending consideration.Considering the above submissions, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to decide the petitioner's application by passing a reasoned order in writing as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Needless to say that this Court is not making any observation on the merits of the case.as per rules.Shri Shailendra Mukati, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.5965/2015, which is an 281 application for condonation of 141 days' delay in filing this petition.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to this application.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.331/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.List after receipt of the record.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A. No.345/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Manuraj Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/State.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without 283 reference to this Court.In view of the above, status-quo regarding the disputed property as it exists today shall be maintained till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondents.In the meanwhile, call for the record.C. c. as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A. No.352/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.In view of the above, status-quo regarding the disputed property as it exists today be maintained till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondents.C. c. as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.494/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 285 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.937/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 286 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.4024/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half the awarded amount within a period of six weeks from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 287 M.A.No.1496/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5998/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half 288 the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1756/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Anand Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phakde, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has 289 filed the rejoinder of the reply filed by the respondents.List after two weeks for disposal, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2589/2015 07/8/2015 None for the petitioner.List after four weeks.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 290 W.P.No.3030/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phakde, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter could be disposed of since it pertains to measurement of the disputed land.Counsel for the respondent prays time to seek instructions.List on 14/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 291 W.P.No.5157/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5188/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Yogesh C. Markan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.None for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 despite 292 having supplied advance notice by the petitioner.In view of the above, nothing coercive shall be done against the petitioner.List for confirmation of interim relief on Tuesday i.e. 11/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5185/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Yogesh C. Markan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.None for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 despite 293 having supplied advance notice by the petitioner.In view of the above, nothing coercive shall be done against the petitioner.List for confirmation of interim relief on Tuesday i.e. 11/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5211/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 294 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner prays for interim relief.Issue notice to the interim relief also.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition he is willing to serve 'hamdast' notice.Prayer is accepted.Registry is directed to prepare the notices on payment of proper process fees and hand over the same to the Counsel for the petitioner within three days.Subject to compliance, list thereafter, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 295 W.P. No.5283/2015 06/8/2015 Shri Abhishekh Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/ State.With the consent of both the Counsel, this writ 296 petition is heard and disposed of finally.We find that the Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed the directions contained in the case of 298 Syed Abdul Qadir (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Col. B.J. Akkara (2006) 11 SCC 709 as also in the case of Shyam Babu Verma 1994(2) SCC 521 and Sahib Ram 1994(2) SCC 52 wherein the department is restrained from recovery of excess amount keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them.In the present case also the benefit extended to the writ petitioner was sought to be recovered on his retirement.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.667/2013 06/8/2015 Shri P.K. Shukla and M.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No. 4475/2015, which is the third application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding appellant Kapil @ Golu.Therefore, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Premchand Ratnakar, who is an Advocate himself and maternal uncle of the appellant and he submits that the entire expenses of the operation shall 301 be borne by him and the appellant be granted at least temporary bail.On considering the above submissions, I find that the prayer for temporary bail needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and and it is hereby allowed.It is ordered that the appellant be released on bail temporarily for a period of three months from today on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his surrender before the concerned trial Court on or before 6th of November, 2015, under intimation in writing to this Court.In case of failure to do so and the appellant shall be liable to be arrested immediately by the police without reference to this Court.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge 302 moni W.P.No.5278/2015 06/8/2015 Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Ashok Airen and Shri Kamal Airen, learned Counsel for the respondents/Caveator.Counsel for the respondents has opposed the 303 submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply to the petition within a period of 15 days from today.List in the week commencing from 24/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.586/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Dinesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishekh Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that he has filed the reply.After considering the submissions, this M.C.C. needs to be admitted and it is hereby admitted.List analogously with S.A. No.1513/2005, as prayed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2162/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Jitendra Jhala, learned Counsel for the respondents.Heard on admission.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.8108/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Sachin Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents though duly served.List for final disposal in the week commencing 307 from 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9050/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Prasanna J. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.Order passed in separate sheets.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9050/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.List for final disposal after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9315/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Subject to which, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 309 W.P.No.5219/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State, on advance notice.By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14/7/2015 (Annexure P/4) by which without giving any opportunity of hearing to them, the respondents have issued direction to recover the amount and all the benefits given to the petitioners, which was given under the compliance of the order of this Court.Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed in Writ Petition No.9082/2013 (Lokendrasingh vs. State of M.P.and 310 others) dated 31/10/2014 and he vehemently urged that no recovery can be ordered against the present petitioners, without granting any opportunity of hearing to them.Keeping in view the aforesaid, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to follow the principle of natural justice and fair play, in case recovery is being ordered against the petitioners and the respondents shall also keep in 311 mind the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Lokendrasingh (supra), while passing any order of recovery.With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge 312 M.C.C.No.265/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned Counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent No.2 though duly served and power has been filed.The application is however, taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. Under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, applicant Smt. Shantabai has prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.176/2007 which has been dismissed for want of appearance of the appellant.and there was no delay in filing this application for restoration.Hence, Counsel prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the mistake is bonafide and the application needs to be allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.200/- as cost in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence, the application is allowed.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge M.C.C.No.613/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Dheeraj Singh Panwar, learned Counsel for the applicant.By this M.C.C. applicant Vinod Kumar has prayed for restoration of First Appeal No.173/1999 which has been dismissed due to peremptory order dated 22/7/2015 for non-appearance of the Counsel.Counsel for the applicant submits that there was no delay in filing this application for restoration.Hence, Counsel prayed the appeal be restored to its original number since the matter has been remanded as per direction of the Apex Court in SLP (C )No.On considering the above submissions, I find that the mistake is bonafide and the application needs to be allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as cost in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence, the application is allowed.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 316 S.A. No.348/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.The proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the stay granted today shall automatically be vacated and appeal shall also stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5230/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously on 7/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni C.R.No.216/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition 318 has been rendered infructuous and he prays for withdrawal of the petition.In view of the above, the present Civil Revision is dismissed as rendered infructuous.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.8549/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent No.9/State.Order passed in separate sheets.Status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained.Both the parties shall not be alienated the property.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.9090/2014, 9160/2014 and 9310/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.He may do so within two weeks.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9300/2014 05/8/2015 Shri S. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel for the respondent.He prays for time to file reply.List on 19/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 321 CONC No.53/2015 05/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been substantial compliance of the order and hence the petition has been rendered infructuous.In view of the above, list in the next week for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.97/2015 05/8/2015 322 Shri Manish Manana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the process has been paid, but there is no report.Registry to verify the same.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.166/2015 05/8/2015 323 Shri G.K. Patidar, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Vishal Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the proposed contemnor.Counsel for the contemnor submits that he is unable to keep the Collector, Ratlam present before this Court today due to flood in the City.In view of the above, last opportunity is granted to the respondent/contemnor.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.166/2015 05/8/2015 324 Shri G.K. Patidar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to file the reply.List on 26/8/2015 along with Conc No.166/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.262/2015 05/8/2015 325 Shri M.K. Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file reply.She is directed to do so positively within two weeks since there is a complaint that the money deposited has not been placed before the trial Court and the petitioner and hence the benefit is not accrued to the petitioner.Counsel for the respondent is also directed to verify whether the amount has been withdrawn by the present petitioner or not?(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.650/2015 05/8/2015 326 Shri S. Choubey, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri A. Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.814/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Arjun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to the petition.By way of indulgence, last week of four weeks' 327 time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to file reply.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.927/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.Both the Counsel pray for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 328 Contempt Petition No.882/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Subhash Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the State has no objection to such a prayer.Keeping in view the aforesaid, contempt petitioner is disposed of by granting further one month's time to the respondents from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to comply 330 with the directions already issued in the aforesaid writ petition."In view of the above, this petition is also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply the order already passed in W.P. No.4330/2013(s) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1199/2014 04/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondents/State.Intervenor Shri Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel on behalf of 331 another intervenor Shri Bharat Modi.Reply has been filed by the Counsel for the petitioner.All the Counsel submit that the pleadings are complete and the matter can be taken up for final disposal.In view of the above, list in the last week of September, 2015 for final disposal.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2539/2014 04/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Dinesh Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.All the Counsel submit that the matter can be disposed of.In view of the above, list in the week commencing from 24/8/2015 for final disposal, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2854/2014 04/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A.for the respondent/State.He prays for time to file reply.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6373/2014 04/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A.for the respondent No.1/State.All the Counsel submit that the matter can be disposed of and prays for time.List in the week commencing from 24/8/2015 for 335 final disposal, as prayed.No further adjournment shall be granted.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6950/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Shailendra Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the other respondents.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay fresh process regarding the unserved respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue notices to the unserved respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.In the meanwhile, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 6 is directed to file reply.List after service of notices on the respondents, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.7439/14,7441/2014 and 7450/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Preteek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.He submits that identical petition bearing W.P. No.7410/2014 has already been disposed of .In view of the above, let these petitions be also admitted for final hearing.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two 337 weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.572/2012 04/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellants.Heard on admission.This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with S.A. No. 571/2012 after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 339 S.A.No.571/2012 04/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellants.Heard on admission.This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-Whether the learned Courts below had erred in holding that the respondents/defendants have constructed their house according to the registered Sale Deed; whereas the Commissioner's report is 340 contrary to this fact?Whether the Courts below had erred in considering the fact that the open land left between the dimensions would also devolved upon the purchaser?Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 341 C.R.No.63/2014 04/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned Counsel for the respondent.He prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 342 M.A. No.140/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Akhil Godha, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Counsel for the appellant submits that appropriate Court fee has already been paid.Registry to verify the same.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition No.143/2015 04/8/2015 Shri P.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with CONC No.360/2015 after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition (Civil) No.183/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Viraj Godha, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 345 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition No.395/2015 04/8/2015 Shri M.M. Bohra, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant 346 submits that he is willing to serve 'hamdast' notice.Prayer is accepted.Registry is directed to prepare the notices on payment of proper process fees and hand over the same to the Counsel for the applicant within three days.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge Contempt Petition No.462/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Rajeev Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 347 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition (Civil) No.479/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 348 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.574/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5623/2015, which is an application for stay.The proceedings pending in HMA Case No.395/15 before the Family Court at Indore shall 349 remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1401/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5649/2015, which is an application for stay.In view of the above, subject to the appellant depositing half of the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 351 M.A.No.1407/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5662/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to the appellant depositing half of the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 353 W.P.No.2716/2015 04/8/2015 Smt. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 354 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4,5 & 6 and Counsel for the petitioner pray for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.

Cited provisions: Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code