Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 88 docs - [View All]
Section 439 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951
Section 438 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Citedby 1 docs
Bhagchand vs Administrator, Municipal ... on 18 March, 2005

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mst.Mogia & Ors. vs Mst.Sukhrania & Ors. on 28 November, 2014
                             S. A. No.
28.11.2014.
     Shri learned counsel for the appellant.
     Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/State.


                                           (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                 Judge
k
                            Cr. R. No.
20.11.2014.
     Shri learned counsel for the applicant.
     Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                            Cr. A. No.
27.11.2014.
     Shri learned counsel for the appellant.
     Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
     (U. C. Maheshwari)                          (R. S. Jha)
           Judge                                   Judge
k

                          M. Cr. C. No.
25.11.2014.
     Shri learned counsel for the applicant.
     Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                              W. P. No.
30.9.2014.
     Shri learned counsel for the petitioner
     Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
 01.09.2014
      None for either of the parties.

      A photocopy of the letter of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bar Association dated 28.8.2014 addressed to the Registrar General,
High Court of M.P Jabalpur, having the endorsement of the signature
(photocopy) of the Registrar General has been circulated to the
Bench according to which on account of making assault by some
persons on Shri P.N.Dubey Senior Member of Bar and Former Dy.
Advocate General of the State of Madhya Pradesh so also on account
of some other demands stated in the letter, the Advocates are
abstained from work.
      In the absence of the Advocates of the parties, in the interest
of justice, the case is adjourned with a direction to the office to list
the same according to its convenience.


                                              (U.C.Maheshwari)
                                                  Judge


k
                          W. P. No.12599/14.
01.09.2014
      None for the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 to 5, the
State authorities.
      This habeas corpus petition is listed today in compliance of the
order dated 28.8.2014 passed by the Division Bench No.1 but a
photocopy of the letter of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar
Association dated 28.8.2014 addressed to the Registrar General,
High Court of M.P Jabalpur, having the endorsement of the signature
(photocopy) of the Registrar General has been circulated to the
Bench according to which on account of making assault by some
persons on Shri P.N.Dubey Senior Member of Bar and Former Dy.
Advocate General of the State of Madhya Pradesh so also on account
of some other demands stated in the letter, the Advocates are
abstained from work.
      In the absence of the Advocates of the parties, in the interest
of justice, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the
same head on 3.9.2014.


                                            (U.C.Maheshwari)
                                                Judge


k
                          W. P. No.12994/14.
01.09.2014.


       Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma, President of the petitioner
Sangh is present in person.
       He is heard on the question of admission.
       Issue notice against admission of this petitionto the
respondents. The same be made returnable in the week commencing
27.10.2014.
    Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be taken
within seven days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed
automatically without further reference to the Bench.



                                            (U.C.Maheshwari)
                                                Judge


k
                         Cr. A. No.2219/14.
02.09.2014.
      Ku. Jailaxmi Aiyerlearned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel is directed to verify the position whether any
petition is preferred on behalf of the State against acquittal of the
respondent No.2 to 4 from the alleged charge in which they have
been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 4.7.2014 in S.
T. No.507/13. Such exercise be carried out within one month.
      Apart the aforesaid office is directed to call the record of the
trial Court positively within one month and case be listed along with
such record in the month of October, 2014 for admission.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                            Cr. A. No.1131/12.
02.09.2014.
        Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the the appellant.
        Shri Mohd Amzad, learned counsel for the respondent.
        Respondent's counsel seeks short adjournment on the ground
of non-availability of Shri R. S. Siddiqui, Assistant Solicitor
General, as he is busy in some other case before Division Bench
No.1.
        Considering such prayer, case is adjourned with a direction to
place under the same head on 8.9.2014.


        (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
              Judge                                   Judge
k
                        Cr. A. No.104/2008.
02.09.2014.
     Shri Abhishake Pastel, learned counsel for the the appellant.
     Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
     Let this matter be listed under the same head, after three
months.


     (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
           Judge                                  Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.1500/04.
02.09.2014.
      None for the the appellant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In compliance of the order dated 1.8.2014, case is listed today
for consideration of IA No.7770/14, appellants' application
permitting them to withdraw this appeal as not pressed on the ground
that State Government is going to consider for remission of their
remaining jail sentence to release them on 15th August, 2014.
      As per aforesaid order dated 1.8.2014 the appellants' counsel
had taken adjournment to take some additional instructions from the
appellants before making submission on the IA.
      We deem fit to extend one more opportunity to the appellants'
counsel to make submission on the aforesaid IA, hence case is
adjourned.
      Let it be placed under the same head in the week commencing
22.9.2014.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2596/13.
02.09.2014.
      Shri L. N. Sakle, learned counsel for the the appellants.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State
      In the course of the argument on IA No.17123/14, second
repeat application on behalf of appellant No.2 for suspension of his
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail in response of some query
of the Court based in the available record of the trial Court, instead
to argue further counsel seeks permission to withdraw this IA as not
pressed.
      Considering aforesaid prayer, IA is dismissed as withdrawn
and not pressed.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                              M. A. No.1507/11.
3.09.2014.
       Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma,          learned counsel for the
appellant.
       Issue notice of IA No.10303/14, an application under Section
5 of Limitation Act and IA No.10131/14, the stay application to the
respondents. The same be made returnable within three months.
    Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be taken
within seven working days, failing which this appeal shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.
       As an interim measure, the appellant is directed to deposit the
entire sum of the impugned award with the Tribunal within 30 days
from today and the Tribunal is directed that on depositing such sum
within the aforesaid period instead to disburse the same to the
claimants, the principle sum be deposited in some nationalize Bank
under fixed deposit scheme with stipulation of its periodical revival
with further stipulation to give its monthly interest to the claimant/
respondent, according to the ratio decided by the Tribunal, till
further order of this Court.
       It is made clear that if the appellant has not deposited the
aforesaid sum within the aforesaid period, the respondents/ claimants
shall be at liberty to recover the entire sum of the impugned award.
       The record of the Tribunal be also requisitioned within three
weeks.
       C. C. as per rules.
                                                 (U.C.Maheshwari)
                                                      Judge
k
                          W. P. No.10868/10.
3.9.2014.
      Shri B. L. Nag learned counsel for the petitioner
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Having heard the petitioner's counsel on IA No.9789/14,
rejoinder filed in the shape of the application in response of return is
taken on record.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.11943/14.
3.9.2014.
         Shri Yogesh Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case
diary.
         The applicant's counsel seeks short adjournment on the ground
of the non-availability of arguing counsel Shri Manish Datt, Senior
Advocate, as he is busy before some other Bench of this Court,
appearing counsel fairly submits that he has not come prepared with
the matter.
         Considering his difficulty, the case is adjourned with a
direction to place under the same head in the week commencing
22.9.2014,


                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                               W. P. No.6410/14.
3.9.2014.
      Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Shri Ramesh Prasad Kusmakar,           P. S. Gotegaon        District
Narsinghpur is present in person along with the case diary of missing
person report No.59, registered at same police station.
      State counsel submits that he has filed the return in the matter on
1.9.2014,    according to which the missing person is an accused of
crime No.557/13 registered at the aforesaid police station         for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and in the course of
investigation of such crime the said police officer has made all possible
efforts to arrest the missing persons but till today he could not get
success to trace out the corpus of Govind Singh Rajput.            He also
pointed out that in the absence of Govind Singh charge sheet of such
crime has also been filed on 31.12.2013 stating that Govind Singh
Rajput is absconded and in such premises he said that after filing the
charge sheet a warrant of arrest has also been issued but the same could
not be executed till today.
      I have carefully gone through the case diary of aforesaid missing
person report.   The manner in which the proceeding of inquiry is
written in the parcha's of the case diary the same does not appear to be
satisfactory because some version of the same are stated on the basis
of imagination, which is not permissible. As per parcha's dated
31.8.2014 till such date the corpus of missing person could not be
traced out with further averments that probably no unhappy incident
had taken place with him. Aforesaid subsequent approach appears to
be written only on imagination of the officer. One thing should be
 remembered by the police officer that husband of the petitioner is
missing since long and State Authority is bound to trace out his corpus
and whereabouts. Therefore, mere saying that he is an accused of some
crime in which the charge sheet has been filed the police officials could
not be escaped from their liability to trace out the missing person.
      It is apparent from the case diary that last near about one year
inspite alleged effort stated in the case diary aforesaid official of the
police could not trace out the corpus of the missing person which
creates the question mark over the capacity of said officer and of the
Police Department. So, in such premises before passing any operative
order or issuing any direction to senior police officers, in the available
circumstance, I deem fit to call and hear the Superintendent of Police,
Narsinghpur, to find out the probability to hand over the inquiry of
missing person report to some other competent person of his
department, who may do the effort to trace out the missing person to
protect the fundamental right of the petitioner as well as the missing
person the husband of the petitioner. Hence, State counsel is directed
to keep present the Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur before the
Court on 16.9.2014.
      Aforesaid police official Shri Ramesh Prasad Kusmakar, is also
directed to remain present along with the case diary of missing person
report and the copy of the charge sheet of aforesaid crime No.557/13
on such date.
      A typed copy of this order be supplied to the office of Advocate
General during the course of the day enabling it to comply the aforesaid
direction.
                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                                Cr. A. No.1661/13.
04.09.2014.
         Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the appellant/ State.
         Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and 3.
         In compliance of earlier direction respondent No.2 and 3 are
present in person, identified by their counsel.
         After making their presence on the record they are directed to
appear before the Court of CJM Rewa firstly on 3.12.2014 and also
on such other dates as are fixed by such Court in this regard till
disposal of this appeal.
         In view of above mentioned direction IA No.12309/14 filed on
behalf of respondent No.2 and 3 for giving them exemption from
personal appearance in the Registry does not require any
consideration, hence the same is hereby disposed of, with a direction
to the aforesaid respondents to appear before the Court of CJM
Rewa, as directed above.
         Let Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa be intimated in this
regard.
         The respondents are also directed to produce the certified copy
of this order in the Court of CJM Rewa on or before aforesaid date.
         C. C. as per rules.


         (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
               Judge                                   Judge
k
                          Cr. R. No.388/13.
04.09.2014.
      Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned counsel for the the applicant.
      Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent
Lokayukt.
      We deem fit to hear this revision after calling the case diary.
Hence, learned counsel for the respondent is directed to call and
produce the same on the next date of hearing.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 29.9.2014.




      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                          Cr. R. No.574/14.
04.09.2014.
      Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the the applicant.
      Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent
Lokayukt.
      We deem fit to hear this revision after calling the case diary.
Hence, learned counsel for the respondent is directed to call and
produce the same on the next date of hearing.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 6.10.2014.




      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                        Cr. A. No.2398/12.
04.09.2014.
     Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/
Lokayukt.
     Let the record of the trial Court be requisitioned within three
weeks and case be listed in the week commencing 6.10.2014.



     (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
           Judge                                 Judge
k
                             Cr. A. No.1660/13.
04.09.2014.
       SShri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the appellant/ State.
       Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for respondent No.1, 2 and 4.
       Shri Kunal Thakre, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
       Respondent No.1 and 4 are present in person, identified by their
counsel.
       After making their presence on the record they are directed to
appear before the Court of CJM Rewa firstly on 3.12.2014 and also on
such other dates as are fixed by such Court in this regard till disposal of
this appeal.
       Considering the prayer of the counsel of respondent No.1, 2 and
4 that vide order dated 7.10.2013 respondent No.2 Chhote Raja @
Neeraj Pratap Singh was directed to appear before the trial Court and
furnish the bail bound but no date for further appearance was given to
him, he is also directed to appear before the Court of CJM Rewa
firstly on 3.12.2014 and also on such other dates as are fixed by such
Court in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
       Counsel of the respondent No.3 seeks short adjournment with a
fixed date to keep present the respondent No.3 before the Court.
       Let this matter be listed on 7.10.2014 for appearance of
respondent No.3.
       Apart the aforesaid the appellant's counsel is heard on the
question of admission.
       Admit.
      The counsel of the respondents have taken notice of this
admission, hence no further notice is required.

       (U. C. Maheshwari)                        (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
              Judge                                    Judge
k
                               Cr. R. No.816/13.
04.09.2014.
       Shri R. L. Ariha, learned counsel for the the applicant.
       Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent Lokayukt.
       On behalf of the applicant/ accused this revision is preferred under
Section 397/401 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the order dated 24.1.2013
passed by the Special Judge, constituted under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, Rewa in Special Case No.01/08 whereby the charge of the
offence punishable under Section 120-B, 467/120-B, 420/120-B, 468/120-
B and 471/120-B of IPC have been framed against the applicant.
       Before beginning the arguments on admission, we are apprised by
the learned counsel of the respondent that all the prosecution witnesses
have been examined in the trial and today the case is fixed for final
arguments in the trial Court. In such premises he prayed that this revision
does not require any consideration on merits and whatsoever objections
stated in the revision could be raised by the applicant before the trial Court
and trial Court may appreciate such objections while deciding the trial on
merits.
       In response of aforesaid arguments the counsel of the applicant
instead to argue the case on merits seeks permission to withdraw this
revision with liberty to raise all the grounds stated in the revision memo in
the light of the recorded evidence before the trial Court at the time of final
arguments and subject to judgment of such Court on arising the occasion
in duly constituted appeal.
       Considering such prayer, without expressing any opinion on merits
of the matter, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with
liberty aforesaid.

       (U. C. Maheshwari)                 (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
              Judge                               Judge
k
                           Cr. R. No.833/13.
04.09.2014.
      Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the the applicant.
      Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent Lokayukt.
       On behalf of the applicant/ accused this revision is preferred under
Section 397/401 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the order dated 24.1.2013
passed by the Special Judge, constituted under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, Rewa in S. T. No.01/08 whereby the charge of the
offence punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of
IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, have been framed against the applicant.
       Before beginning the arguments on admission, we are apprised by
the learned counsel of the respondent that all the prosecution witnesses
have been examined in the trial and today the case is fixed for final
arguments in the trial Court. In such premises he prayed that this revision
does not require any consideration on merits and whatsoever objections
stated in the revision could be raised by the applicant before the trial Court
and trial Court may appreciate such objections while deciding the trial on
merits.
       In response of aforesaid arguments the counsel of the applicant
instead to argue the case on merits seeks permission to withdraw this
revision with liberty to raise all the grounds stated in the revision memo in
the light of the recorded evidence before the trial Court at the time of final
arguments and subject to judgment of such Court on arising the occasion
in duly constituted appeal.
       Considering such prayer, without expressing any opinion on merits
of the matter, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with
liberty aforesaid.
              (U. C. Maheshwari)                 (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
                     Judge                               Judge
k
                            W. P. No.6973/14.
4.9.2014.
         Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner.
         Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 &2.
         Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.3/
State.
         In the course of the arguments, in view of the decision of the
Apex Court in the matter of Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar Hydrabad and another Vs. Ajit Prasad
Tarway Manager (Purchase & Store) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Balanagar Hydrabad reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 and in the matter
of Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. Vs. K. D. Ganapathi & Anr.
Reported in AIR 2011 SC 1353 respectively holding that if any
order is passed by the subordinate Court under it's vested
discretionary jurisdiction then the same could not be interfered under
the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C. P. C. or under
superintendent jurisdiction of this Court enumerated under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, unless the subordinate Court has
committed jurisdiction error in passing such order, on making certain
query from the petitioner's counsel regarding entertainability of this
petition, on which instead to argue further today such counsel seeks
short adjournment to examine some more legal position before
making further submission.
         Considering his prayer the case is adjourned with a direction
to place under the same head in the week commencing 15.9.2014.

                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                            F. A. No.613/13.
4.9.2014.
      Shri Ahadullah Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Smt. Arpana Vij, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (i)
to 1(vi), the legal representatives of original decree holder.
      In the available circumstances the presence of respondent
No.2 is not required, hence notice against him is hereby dispensed
with, if the same has not been served.
      Appellant's counsel submits that for some personal reason he
could not bring the brief of the case today and seeks short
adjournment.
      Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to
place under the same head in the week commencing 15.9.2014.


                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                             S. A. No.126/2013.
4.9.2014.
      Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for respondent No.2/State.
      Let the record of the Courts below be requisitioned positively
within one month and case be listed for admission and consideration
of IA No.1431/13, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC , for
grant of stay against execution of impugned decree passed by the
trial Court.
      Apart the aforesaid on payment of P. F. along with requisites
of registered post within five working days notice of aforesaid IA
returnable by fixing a date in the week commencing 27.10.2014, be
issued to the respondent No.1, failing which this appeal shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.
      As an interim measure till next hearing of this appeal the
Executing Court as well as the concerning Revenue Court are
directed to proceed with the matter but shall not direct any party to
deliver the possession of the disputed property from one party to
another party unless the order of this Court.
      C. C. as per rules.

                                                (U.C.Maheshwari)
                                                      Judge

k
                          Cr. A. No.3282/2013.
05.09.2014.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the appellant/ State.
      None for the respondent.
      Having perused the IA No.10154/14, an application filed on
behalf of respondent No.5 for condoning his non-appearance in the
Registry on 13.5.2014, for the reasons stated in it, we are satisfied
that sufficient cause is made out for condoning such non-appearance
of respondent No.5. Hence by allowing the IA such non-appearance
is hereby condoned.
      Now the respondent No.5 is directed to appear in the Registry
of this court, firstly on 9.12.2014 and on such other dates which are
given by the office in that regard till final disposal of this appeal.
      C. C. as per rules.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                       (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                     Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.2877/2013.
05.09.2014.
      Instead to earlier engaged counsel Shri Sidharth Datt,
Advocate has given his appearance on behalf of the appellants.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/State.
      Having heard on IA No.15389/14, appellants' application
permitting them to prosecute this appeal through Shri Sidharth Datt,
Advocate and his associates keeping in view the principle that
accused like appellants have unfettered right to prosecute or defend
the case through the counsel of their choice, IA is allowed and Shri
Sidharth Datt, and his associates are permitted to prosecute this
appeal on behalf of the appellants. Shri Sidharth Datt, Advocate is
directed to file his Vakalatnama within fifteen days. Subject to filing
his vakalatnama, office is directed to circulate the name of S Shri
Sidharth Datt, Advocate and his associates in daily cause list in
future.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                             Cr. A. No.1558/13.
05.09.2014.
         Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the appellant/ State.
         Shri Priyank Khandelwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1
and 2.
         Having perused IA No.15041/14, for the reasons stated in it
the same is allowed and annexed document is taken on record.
         Office is directed to list this matter for final hearing in due
course along with Cr. A. No.312/2013.




         (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
               Judge                                   Judge
k
                       Cr. A. No.1019/2013.
05.09.2014.
     Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the the appellant.
     Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
     Let this matter be listed under the same head in the month of
February, 2015.


     (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
           Judge                                   Judge
k
                           Cr. R. No.187/13.
05.09.2014.
      Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the the applicant.
      Shri Rakesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/ EOW
      Having heard on I. A. No.16836/14, applicants' application for
early hearing of this revision, for the reasons stated in it the same is
allowed.
      Office is directed to list this matter for hearing by fixing a date
in the week commencing 6.10.2014.
      Respondent's counsel is directed to call and produce the case
diary on such date.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                      (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2599/12.
05.09.2014.
      None for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Let the presence of the appellant No.1 be secured before this
Court by issuing bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against him. Same
be made returnable by fixing a date in the month November, 2014.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                            Cr. A. No.318/12.
05.09.2014.
      Shri S. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on IA No.2382/12, appellant's application for
condoning the delay in filing the appeal, as the same is filed barred
by 44 days.
      Having heard keeping in the arguments advanced, after
perusing the averments of the IA, for the reasons stated in it along
with the circumstance that appellant has been convicted under
Section 302 of IPC for life imprisonment, we are satisfied that
sufficient cause is made out for condoning the alleged delay. Hence,
by allowing the IA the same is condoned.
      At the request of the appellant's counsel he is heard on the
question of admission.
      Having perused the impugned judgment, this appeal appears to
be arguable, hence, the same is admitted for final hearing.
      Learned G. A. has taken notice of this admission on behalf of
the respondent, hence no further notice is required in this regard.
      Record of the trial Court has already been received, hence
office is directed to list this matter for final hearing in due course.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                       (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                     Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2850/11.
05.09.2014.
      None for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Let the presence of the appellant No.2 be secured before this
Court by issuing bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against him. Same
be made returnable by fixing a date in the month November, 2014.
      IA No.13939/14, shall be considered on the next date of
hearing.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.228/09.
05.09.2014.
      Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the month of
January, 2015.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1362/11.
05.09.2014.
      Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the the appellants.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to
withdraw IA No.15958/2014, an application filed on behalf of
appellant No.1, Imran Khan, for suspension of his remaining jail
sentence and grant of bail as not pressed at this stage with further
prayer for appropriate direction to the office to list the matter for
final hearing on some early date according to the spirit of order dated
24.4.2014 whereby the coordinate Bench of this court by allowing
his application for early hearing had directed to list this matter for
final hearing in the month of July, 2014.
      Considering the aforesaid prayer, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the matter IA is hereby dismissed as withdrawn
and not pressed at this stage. However, considering the oral prayer
of the appellants' counsel after perusing the order dated 24.4.2014,
office is directed to list this matter for final hearing before
30.11.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.638/09..
5.9.2014.
      Shri K. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      At the outset the appellants counsel seeks permission to
withdraw IA No.15312/14, repeat application for suspension of
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants, with
liberty to revive the prayer after exhausting the remedy of filing an
application for early hearing of this appeal on merits and subject to
outcome of the same.
      Considering aforesaid prayer, IA is dismissed as withdrawn
and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                        Cr. A. No.1762/2014.
05.09.2014.
      Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Virendra Singh, learned for the respondent/Lokayukt.
      Considering the prayer of the respondent's counsel the
appellant's counsel is directed to supply him a copy of the memo of
appeal and annexed papers along with the copy of IA No.16288/14,
within three working day, enabling him to defend the matter.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 22.9.2014.




      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1653/14.
05.09.2014.
      None for the the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In the absence of the appellant's counsel case is adjourned with
a direction to place under the same head after fifteen days.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2678/13.
05.09.2014.
      Shri K. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted further period of
fifteen days to make his submission on IA No.16680/14.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head after fifteen days.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.11330/14.
5.9.2014.
      Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      On asking the P. L. whether he has received any report
regarding criminal antecedents of the applicant, on which he submits
that such record has not been sent with the case diary.
      I deem fit to hearing this petition after calling the criminal
antecedents of the applicant, hence, learned P. L. is directed to call
the same within the seven days and office is directed to list this
matter under the same head on 15.9.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.325/2005.
08.09.2014.
      None for the the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In the absence of the appellant's counsel IA No.12723/14, a
repeat application filed on behalf of the appellant No.1 for
suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail is
dismissed for want of prosecution.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1562/04.
08.09.2014.
      Shri Umakant Sharma Senior Advocate assisted by Shri P. N.
Tiwari, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Umesh Pandey, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      This matter is listed today for consideration of IA No.5953/14,
9th repeat application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant No.1, Tek Singh. It is noted that out of
aforesaid eight applications one of them for temporary bail was
allowed to perform the last rite of his father vide order dated
21.8.2009.
      Although counsel presents are ready to argue the case on the
aforesaid IA keeping in view the direction of the Apex Court given
in the order dated 10.1.2014 but the case being listed without tagging
the record of the trial Court so also the connected Cr. A. No.1499/04
and 1650/04, hearing on the aforesaid IA is not possible today, hence
the case is adjourned with a direction to place this matter along with
both the connected appeal so also with the record of the trial Court
on 11.9.2014.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                        Cont. Case No.387/2014.
5.9.2014.
      Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
      The respondent's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of
fifteen days to file the reply/ response in the matter.
      Let this matter be listed for further orders after fifteen days.
      Apart the aforesaid office is directed to place this matter along
with W. P. No.15483/13 and W. P. No.5694/14 on 15.9.2014.



                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                         W. P. No.5694/14.
8.9.2014.
      Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner
      Shri S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
      Let this matter be listed along with W. P. No.15483/13 and
Conc. Case No.387/14 on 15.9.2014 for final disposal.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                          W. P. No.15483/13.
8.9.2014.
      Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
      Although this case is listed today for admission but in the
available circumstances so also in compliance of earlier direction of
this Court, I deem fit to hear the argument on admission as well as
for final disposal at the stage of admission, on asking the counsel
present in this regard then the counsel of the respondent seeks short
adjournment saying that he has not come prepared for final
argument.
      Considering such prayer case is adjourned with a direction to
place this matter along with W. P. No.5694/14 and Conc. Case
No.387/14 by giving separate number in the cause list for admission
as well as for final disposal on 15.9.2014
      As the case is listed today on the top of the list, hence office is
directed to list this matter under the same head on the aforesaid date.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1460/14.
09.09.2014.
      Shri Atulanand Awasthy. learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on IA No.10270/14, appellant's application for
suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail, as he has been
convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC for Life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.
      After arguing for some time in response of some query of the
Court based on available evidence including the deposition of
doctor, who carried out the postmortem of deceased along with some
principle of medical jurisprudence regarding strangulation and
hanging, instead to argue further the appellant's counsel seeks
permission to withdraw this IA with liberty revive the prayer at
subsequent stage on availability of some additional grounds or
change in the circumstance or after facing the substantial part of the
jail sentence.
      Considering his prayer, IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not
pressed with aforesaid liberties.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.12608/14.
9.9.2014.
      Shri Harikant Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P. L. counsel submit that he is under the receipt of
case diary.
      Heard.
      This repeat petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C.
for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 30.6.2014
in connection with Crime No.431/14, registered at Police Station
Gorakhpur, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 34(2)
of Excise Act and Section 109 of IPC.
      It is noted that his earlier application in this regard was
dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 7.8.2014 in
M. Cr. C. No.10957/14, accordingly no such application has been
considered on merits.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the case diary in the available circumstance, taking into
consideration the nature of evidence collected by the investigating
agency and submitted with the charge sheet so also the period
suffered by the applicant till today i. e. two months and ten days
along with the additional circumstance that the case is triable by the
JMFC and trial will take on its own time months together, without
expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is
allowed.
      It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to
 the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Sanju @ Tota Sharma
(Gond) shall be released on bail with a direction to appear on each
and every date of hearing before the trial court.    His single non-
appearance before the trial court shall lead to automatic dismissal of
this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                            (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                  Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.12210/14.
9.9.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      In the absence of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned
with a direction to place under the same head in the week
commencing 22.9.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                                M. Cr. C. No.12483/14.
9.9.2014.
         Shri B. K. Vaishya, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned P. L. counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case
diary.
         Heard.
         This repeat petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 4.7.14 in connection
with Crime No.236/14, registered at Police Station Vindhyanagar, District
Singrauli for the offence punishable under Section 305 of IPC.
         It is noted that his earlier application in this regard was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 1.8.2014 in M. Cr. C. No.11031/14 by
extending a liberty to revive the prayer after filing the charge sheet and as
per averments of the petition the same has been preferred after filing the
charge sheet.
         Having heard      keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the case diary along with the copy of the charge sheet referred by
the applicant's counsel in the available circumstance, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is allowed.
         It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Rakesh Kumar Shah shall be
released on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of
hearing before the trial court. His single non-appearance before the trial
court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
         C. C. as per rules.
                                                   (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                          Judge
k
                      M. Cr. C. No.12236/14.
9.9.2014.
      Shri Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P. L. submits that inspite his intimation he is not
under the receipt of case diary.
      Let it be placed under the same head in the week commencing
22.9.2014. Meanwhile case diary be called positively.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.12037/14.
9.9.2014.
      Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P. L. is under the receipt of case diary.
      At the request of the applicant's counsel matter is taken up for
consideration of IA No.17630/14, applicant's application to delete
the name of the applicant No.2 from the cause title.
      Having hearing for the reasons stated in the IA the same is
allowed and applicant's counsel is directed to carry out the necessary
corrected in the array of the petition within three days.
      Subject to such correction this matter be listed in the next
week along with IA No.17934/14, filed in the Registry yesterday.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.11272/14.
9.9.2014.
         Shri S. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of the case
diary.
         In the course of the arguments some document is referred by
the applicant's counsel in support of his submission. He is directed
to submit the same in the Registry within three days and office is
directed to place this matter under the same head in the week
commencing 22.9.2014. Applicant's counsel is also directed to file
the entire copy of the proceedings of the trial Court before next
hearing enabling the Court to know the present status of the trial.


                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.9405/14.
9.9.2014.
      Ku. Savita Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Applicant's counsel seeks for and is short adjournment to file
some additional documents before making her submission.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 22.9.2014.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                           M. Cr. C. No.8661/14.
9.9.2014.
         Shri P. C. Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of the case
diary.
         In view of availability of case diary this repeat petition filed
under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. could be considered and adjudicated
on merits but at the request of the applicant's counsel case is
adjourned.
         Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 22.9.2014.


                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                              M. Cr. C. No.13156/14.
9.9.2014.
       Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
       State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
       Heard.
       This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of
bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in
connection with Crime No.508/14, registered at Police Station Waidhan
District Singrauli, for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 465,
466, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of IPC.
       In the course of the arguments in response of some query of the
Court based on basic proceeding of revenue record in which the alleged
Patta was directed to be issued in favour of the applicant, instead to argue
further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition
as not pressed with liberty to file fresh application by mentioning some
additional facts so also by annexing some additional documents including
the aforesaid proceedings of revenue case.
       Considering his prayer without expressing any opinion on merits of
the matter, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with
liberty aforesaid.   However,      it is made clear that if the applicant is
surrendered himself or arrested by the investigating officer in the present
matter then aforesaid liberty shall not come in the way of the applicant to
file the appropriate application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. and this
order shall also not come in the way of the concerning Court to adjudicate
such application on merits in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the law.
       C. C. as per rules.
                                                 (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                        Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1649/10.
10.9.2014.
      Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      For the reasons stated in connected appeal No.1610/10, listed
today for consideration of IA No.17581/14, an application for
suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant of such appeal, is adjourned at the request of the P. L. and
therefore, this appeal is also adjourned with a direction to place
under the same head in the week commencing 22.9.2014.
      Office is further directed to produce the record of the trial
Court on such date.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1610/10.
10.9.2014.
      Shri Umesh Bassi learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.17581/14,
appellant's application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of
bail along with connected criminal appeal 1649/10 filed by the co-
convicted accused, which is also listed for consideration of IA
No.13139/14, third repeat application for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail.
      Appellants' counsel of both the appeals are ready to make their
submission on the aforesaid IAs but the P. L. seeks some time to go
through the record of the trial Court, as he has not fully prepared
with the case.
      On asking the P. L. to keep the matter as pass over, on which
he is ready to argue the case but counsel of the other connected
appeal Shri Sharad Verma submits that he is not available after 12.30
p. m. and in such premises case is adjourned with a direction to place
under the same head in the week commencing 22.9.2014.
      It is noted that the record of the trial Court is available in the
connected criminal Appeal No.1434/10, which is also filed by other
co-convicted accused. Office is directed to place the record of the
trial Court on the aforesaid date of hearing.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                        (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                      Judge
k
                            Cr. A. No.821/02.
10.9.2014.
      Ms. Savita Choudhary, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In the course of the arguments on IA No.16950/14, second
repeat application filed on behalf of appellant No.2, Purushottam Lal
Jhariya, for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of
bail in view of order dated 28.4.2014, whereby the appeal has been
directed to be listed for final hearing before 30.9.2014 on making
certain query from the appellant's counsel, on which instead to argue
further the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this IA
with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on availability of
some additional grounds.
      Considering his prayer IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not
pressed with liberty aforesaid. However, office is directed to list this
matter for final hearing according to the spirit of order dated
28.4.2014.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                       (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                     Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2418/10.
10.9.2014.
      Shri H. S. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Service report of bailable warrant issued against the appellant
Raju @ Rajkumar is still awaited.
      Let same be requisitioned through reminder within within six
weeks and place before the Bench on the next date of hearing.
      Apart the aforesaid, office is directed to secure the presence of
appellant by issuing fresh non-bailable warrant against him. The
same be made returnable by fixing a date in the month of February,
2015. The same be sent through Superintendent of Police, Satna for
its execution under his guidance and supervision by taking all efforts
to trace out such appellant , so the same be not returned back
unserved.
      Case be listed accordingly.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.548/11.
10.9.2014.
      Shri Santosh Yadav learned P. L. for the appellants.
      Shri H. S. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
      Service report of bailable warrant issued against the
respondent No.1 Raju @ Rajkumar is still awaited.
      Let same be requisitioned through reminder within within six
weeks and place before the Bench on the next date of hearing.
      Apart the aforesaid, office is directed to secure the presence of
respondent by issuing fresh non-bailable warrant against him. The
same be made returnable by fixing a date in the month of February,
2015. The same be sent through Superintendent of Police, Satna for
its execution under his guidance and supervision by taking all efforts
to trace out such respondent, so the same be not returned back
unserved.
      Case be listed accordingly.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                           M. Cr. C. No.2832/14.
10.9.2014.
         Shri Sanjiv Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case
diary.
         Learned counsel of the applicant again seeks for and is granted
short adjournment to file copy of the deposition of the father of the
deceased.
         Let this matter be listed immediately after fifteen days.
         Case diary be produced on such date.


                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.2529/14.
10.9.2014.
     Shri R. P. Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant.
     Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
     Let this matter be listed along with M. Cr. C. No.13035/13 and
2917/14 in the week commencing 29.9.2014.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                      M. Cr. C. No.11822/13.
10.9.2014.
     None for the applicant.
     Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
     In the absence of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.13053/13.
10.9.2014.
      Shri Samim Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Nirmala Nayak, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel seeks for and is granted a period of seven days to
file some report received today in her office.
      Let this matter be listed along with connected M. Cr. C.
No.2529/14 and M. Cr. C. No. 2917/14 in the week commencing
29.9.2014.
      At this stage I am apprised by the applicant's counsel that this
repeat petition is yet to be heard on merits also and prayed for the
same but in compliance of order dated 19.8.2014 the same has not
been listed along with M. Cr. C. No.2917/14.         Hence office is
directed to list this matter along with connected M. Cr. C.
No.2529/14 and M. Cr. C. No. 2917/14 in the week commencing
29.9.2014.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.9597/14.
10.9.2014.
         Shri Sazidullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Shri S. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant,
Avinash Pathak.
         Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case
diary.
         On taking up the matter for hearing IA No.16999/14, an
application filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 64 of
Evidence Act for appropriate direction to the applicant to produce
the original agreement dated 28.8.2008 on record.
         Applicant's counsel submits that he has not received the copy
of aforesaid IA and therefore, he is not in a position to make any
submission. In such premises the counsel of the complainant is
directed to supply a copy of the aforesaid IA to the counsel of the
applicant during the course of the day.
         Case be listed under the same head in the next week.
         Case diary be produced on such date.


                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                           W. P. No.18564/12.
10.9.2014.
      The petitioner Dr. Amitabh Shukla is present in person,
identified by Dr. R. B. Dubey.
      Shri Ashish Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.
      Although this matter is listed today for admission and interim
relief but I am apprised that pleadings of the parties are completed in
the matter and case is ripe for final hearing.       In the aforesaid
premises, instead to hear this petition only on the question of
admission, I deem fit to hear this petition for final disposal also.
Hence, office is directed to place this matter in the week
commencing 13.10.2014 for admission and subject to availability
of time for final disposal.
      Meantime authorities of the respondent is directed through its
counsel to consider and decide the pending representation of the
petitioner (Ann. P.4) within thirty days from today and place the
decision of the authorities before the Court on or before next date of
hearing.
       C. C. as per rules.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1030/08.
11.9.2014.
      Shri Deepak Pendharkar, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      In the course of the argument on IA No.17417/14, 4th repeat
application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant, in view of earlier order dismissing his
application in this regard on merits on making certain query from the
appellant's counsel, on which instead to argue further counsel seeks
permission to withdraw the IA with liberty to file appropriate
application for early hearing as the appellant is in custody since
11.4.2005 and in such premises he has suffered more than nine years
out of the awarded jail sentence.
      Considering his prayer IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not
pressed with liberty aforesaid.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1356/08.
11.9.2014.
      Shri Mohd. Ali learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on I. A. No.17565/14, appellant's second repeat
application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of
bail, as he has been convicted under Section 302 and 294 of IPC for
for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-.
      It is noted that earlier application of the appellant in this
regard has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.12.2008
by extending a liberty to revive the prayer at labour stage and it
appears that present IA is preferred under the aforesaid liberty.
      The appellant's counsel after taking us through the record of
the trial Court argued that this is case of single blow of stick on the
head of the deceased by the appellant, on which during the course of
the treatment he succumbed to such injuries. He further said that
alleged incident had taken place at the residence of the accused
where the deceased came and carried out some hot talk with respect
of the family partition, as such incident had taken place without pre-
mediation in a sudden quarrel under the heat of passion and in such
premises he said that on taking into consideration the evidence
adduced by the prosecution on its entirety even then it was not a case
of more than Section 304-II or in any case of Section 304-I of IPC.
In continuation he said that the appellant in jail since the date of his
arrest i. e. 5.8.2007 and suffered more than 7 years out of the
awarded jail sentence and prayed for suspension of remaining jail
sentence of the appellant and grant of bail by allowing this IA.
       On the other hand State counsel submits that looking to the
nature of the office and manner in which it was committed by the
appellant's for which prima-facie sufficient evidence is available on
the record the appellant does not deserve for suspension of his
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
      Having heard the counsel at length keeping the arguments
advanced after perusing the record of the trial Court taking into
consideration the nature of incident along with the circumstance that
it is a case of single blow of stick and incident had taken place at the
residence of the accused where the deceased came and carried out
some hot talk with respect of the family partition, so also keeping in
view the aforesaid period suffered by the appellant in jail, without
expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, I. A. is allowed and
subject to verification of depositing the fine amount, his remaining
jail sentence is hereby suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court appellant Ram Singh be released on bail with further direction
to appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on 10.12.2014 and
on all subsequent dates which are given by the office in this regard
till disposal of this appeal.
       C. C. as per rules.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                      (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                            S. A. No.568/03..
11.9.2014.
        Sole appellant is reportedly dead.
        Shri A. T. Fareedi, learned counsel for the applicants, the
proposed legal representative of deceased appellant mentioned in IA
No.14361/10.
        Shri Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1
to 7.
        Shri Satyapal Chadhar, learned P. L. for the respondent No.8.
        This case is listed today for consideration of IA No14361/10,
14362/10, and IA No.14363/10, applications of the applicants/ the
proposed legal representatives of the deceased appellant to substitute
their name on the record after death of the appellant.
        The counsel of respondent No.1 to 7 again prayed short
adjournment to file the reply of all the aforesaid application.
        It is apparent from the record that counsel of such respondents
had received the copies of aforesaid IAs on the date of filing the
same i. e. 10.12.2010 and in last more that three and half year no
reply has been filed on their behalf. In such premises I am of the
considered view that sufficient time has already been granted to such
respondent to file reply of aforesaid IAs, hence such prayer is hereby
rejected.
        Heard on IA No.14363/13, an application of the proposed
applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the
delay in filing the IA No.14362/10, an application filed under Order
22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the abatement of the appeal cause
on account of death of the deceased appellant and on non-taking the
 appropriate steps to substitute his legal representative on record with
the prescribed period.
      Although the reply has not been filed on behalf of the private
respondents but on hearing the IA the averments of the same has
been seriously opposed by the counsel of the private respondents
saying that whatsoever reasons stated by the applicants in the IA for
condoning the delay of 649 days the same could not be treated to
sufficient, as per requirement of Section 5 of Limitation Act.
      Having heard perused the same keeping in view the principle
laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Sumiran Vs. D.
D. C. and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 606 holding that if the
party belongs to remote area of some village, uneducated or illiterate
or agriculturist then in their matter to substitute the legal
representatives on record    should be considered by adopting the
lenient view with justice oriented approach, instead to dismiss such
proceedings on the technical ground of limitation, for the reasons
stated in the IA, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to
condone the alleged delay in filing the IA No.14362/10, the
application for setting aside the aforesaid abatement of the appeal
caused on account of death of sole appellant. Hence, the IA is
allowed and the alleged delay is condoned.
      After condoning the delay IA No.14362/10, an application of
Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the aforesaid abatement is
taken for consideration, for the reasons on which the aforesaid earlier
IA is allowed on the same reasons this IA is also allowed and
alleged abatement of appeal is hereby set aside.
       After setting aside the abatement of appeal IA No.14363/10,
an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC is taken up for
consideration, the proposed persons appear to be natural heirs and
legal representatives of the appellant, hence by allowing the IA
proposed legal representatives are permitted to place their name at
the place of deceased appellant in the array of appeal memo within
ten days.
       Subject to aforesaid compliance, office is directed to list the
matter for admission.



                                            (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                  Judge
k
                          S. A. No.1363/05.
12.9.2014.
      Shri M. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      This appeal is listed today along with connected S. A.
No.1265/05 filed by some of the respondents of present appeal so
also with S. A. No.1255/05, but from the record of second appeal
No.1265/05 it is apparent that respondent No.15, Smt. Shivkumar
has passed away. On asking from the appellant's counsel in this
regard, on which he seeks for and is granted a period of one month to
verify the position and if necessary to take necessary steps for
bringing the legal representatives of respondent No.15 on record.
      Let this matter be listed along with S. A. No.1265/05 only, by
fixing a date within three months for appropriate order on the
aforesaid question.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          S. A. No. 1265/05.
12.9.2014.
      None for the the appellant.
      Shri M. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
      None for respondent No. 2 to 4 and 9 to 11 and sixteen,
although served.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent No.6/ State.
      Remaining respondents are still unserved expect respondent
No.15.
      As per office report respondent No.15 has passed away and
this case is listed today for consideration of IA No.10251/2005 and
IA No.3666/06, applications for substitution of legal representatives
of deceased respondent No.15 Smt. Shivkumar.
      On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post
within seven days notice of aforesaid both the IAs returnable by
fixing a date within three months be issued to the proposed legal
representatives of the deceased respondent No.15, as mentioned in
IA No.10251/05, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed
automatically without further reference to the Bench.
      Office is directed to inform the appellant's counsel regarding
this order within three working days through memo           regarding
aforesaid direction.
      Apart the aforesaid, it is mentioned that this second appeal is
listed today along with connected S. A. No.1363/05 filed by the
respondent No.1 against the same judgment and S. A. No.1255/05,
as connected cases but the S. A. No.1255/05 being not related in any
manner either with the present second appeal or the other connected
 S. A. No.1363/05. Hence, such S. A. No.1255/05, has been directed
to be de-liniked. For one reason or another the record of both the
Courts below of this appeal was placed by the official of the Registry
with S. A. No.1255/05, so considering the circumstance after
verification the same has been shifted from such appeal to the
present appeal by the Reader on the direction of the Court.
Accordingly, the record of the courts below are available with this
appeal.
      Let this matter be listed along with S. A. No.1363/05, on the
date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notices.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           S. A. No.1255/2005.
12.9.2014.
        None for the the appellant as well as respondent No.1.
        Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent No.2/ State.
        In compliance of order dated 9.4.2014, this second appeal is
listed today along with S. A. No.1265/05 and S. A. No.1363/05 as
connected cases but counsel of the appellant of S. A. No.1363/05,
Shri M. P. Shukla, present pointed out that this appeal is not
connected./ relevant in any manner with the aforesaid both the S. A.
No.1363/05 and S. A. No.1265/05 and prayed to de-link the same
from aforesaid two appeals.
        In view of aforesaid submission, this matter is directed to be
de-linked from      aforesaid both the S. A. No.1363/05 and S. A.
No.1265/05.
        Apart the aforesaid the record of the Courts below which is
related to aforesaid both the S. A. No.1363/05 and S. A. No.1265/05
are also tagged with this appeal. Hence, Reader is directed to shift
the record of both the Courts below from this Second Appeal to S. A.
No.1265/05. In compliance of this order the Reader has shifted the
same.
        Now office is directed to verify the position if the record of the
Courts below relating to the present appeal is not received till today
then same be called positively within fifteen days through special
messenger and this appeal be listed along with such record in the
week commencing 13.10.2014 for admission.
                                               (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                     Judge
k
                           S. A. No.16672/13.
12.9.2014.
       Shri Shailendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the the appellant.
       Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent No.1/ State.
       As per office note service report of notice issued to respondent
No.2 and 3 is still awaited while nothing has been stated regarding
service report of notice with respect of respondent No.4.
       Respondent No.1 to 3 are represented through State counsel,
hence service of notice on authorities of such respondents are not
required. In such premises notice issued to respondent No.2 and 3 is
recalled and the State counsel is directed to accept notice on behalf
of such respondents.
       On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post
within seven days fresh notice as directed earlier, returnable within
six weeks be issued to the respondent No.4 failing which this
petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference
to the Bench.
       State counsel seeks for and is granted a period to two months
to file the return.
       IA No.10220/14, petitioners application for early hearing shall
be considered after filing the return of the respondents.




                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          W. P. No.5266/14.
12.9.2014.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the petitioners/ State.
      Shri S. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
      Let the record of the Labour Court be requisitioned within one
month and case be listed immediately thereafter or in any case in the
first week of November, 2014 for consideration of all pending IAs.
      Meanwhile respondent may filed the return, if so desire.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          S. A. No.1246/2000.
12.9.2014.
      Shri Subodh Kathal, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Heard on the question of admission.
      Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view his
arguments after perusing the record of the Courts below along with
the impugned judgments this appeal is admitted for final hearing on
the following substantial questions of law:
   1. Whether in the available factual matrix and in view of
      provision of section 145 of the Evidence Act the appellate
      Court has committed error in setting aside the decree of the
      trial court and dismissing the suit of the appellant/ plaintiff, by
      reversing the findings of para 18 of the trial court judgment
      holding that the statement of the principal appellant/ plaintiff
      (since deceased) recorded in some revenue case before some
      revenue Court being not confronted in his cross examination
      could not be used against him ?
   2. Whether in the available factual matrix in view of the
      provision of Hindu Personal Law the appellate Court has
      committed error in dismissing the suit of the appellant/
      plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial
      court by holding that the original owner of the property, real
      brother of the deceased namely Ojha after death of his first
      wife Somti Bai got married with Rukiya Bai ?
   3. Whether the approach of the appellant Court holding that
      subsequent to death of the first wife said deceased Ojha was
      duly married with Rukiya Bai is sustainable under the law ?
       Let notice of this admission along with the copy of the framed
substantial question of law, returnable within three months be issued
to the respondents. P. F. along with all requisites of registered post
be submitted within seven days, failing which this appeal shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           S. A. No.2325/05.
12.9.2014.
      Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Initially he argued the the case on admission near about 20
minutes but in view of available record on asking the counsel that
according to the provision of Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on
Agricultural Holding Act, 1960, the principal Bhoomiswami and the
persons of joint Hindu Family was entitled for how much land and
whether dispute raised in the impugned suit the was raised in the
return (Vivarni) submit at the first instance before the competent
authority, on which he seeks for and is granted short adjournment for
further preparation of the matter.
      Let this matter placed under the same head for further
arguments on admission in the month of October, 2014.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                             Cr. A. No.1447/2010.
15.9.2014.
      Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the the
appellant.
      Shri Umesh Pandey, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on I. A. No.16723/14, appellant's application for
suspension of her remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as she
has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC for lire imprisonment
with fine of Rs.500/-.
      Appellant's counsel argued that the impugned conviction of
the appellant is based only on extra judicial confession given to
Pohaw Singh (P.W.9), which is not supported by any other witness
including Durga Bai (P. W.11), as alleged such confession was made
in her presence and one more person Panchchhi Bai, who was not
examined by the prosecution. He further said that extra judicial
confession is week type of the evidence and same could not be a
foundation unless the same is supported by any admissible evidence.
In continuation, he said that such extra judicial confession is also not
supported by the postmortem report of the deceased as well as the
deposition of concerning doctor, as such according to the
postmortem report the alleged death had taken place before 48-72
hours from the time of postmortem of the corpus while as per the
case of the prosecution the dead body was recovered within 36 hours
and autopsy of the corpus was carried out within 39 hours from the
death of the deceased. In such premises, the learned counsel of the
appellant prayed for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.
      Aforesaid prayer is opposed by the Stat counsel saying that
looking to the nature of offence in which the appellant has murdered
 her husband for which prima-facie sufficient evidence is available on
record, she does not deserve for suspension of jail sentence and grant
of bail. However, he fairly conceded that entire case is based on
extra judicial confession of the appellant, which is not supported by
Matwar Singh (P.W.6). He fairly admitted that one of the alleged
eyewitness Panchchhi has not been examined while Durga Bai has
not supported the case of the prosecution.
      Having heard keeping the arguments advanced after perusing
the record keeping in view the principle that extra judicial confession
is week type evidence and same could not be a foundation unless the
same is supported by any admissible evidence and the nature of other
available evidence on record along with the postmortem report and
the deposition of doctor who carried out autopsy of the corpus,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, I. A. is
allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount
remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court appellant Kalawati Bai      be   released on bail with further
direction to appear before the trial Court firstly on 3.12.2014 and on
all subsequent dates which are given by such Court in this regard
till disposal of this appeal.
       C. C. as per rules.

             (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Subhash Kakade)
                   Judge                                Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.880/10.
15.09.2014.
      Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the the
appellants.
      Shri Umesh Pandey, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on IA No.18153/14, an application filed on behalf of
appellant No.1 Rajbahoran for suspension of his jail sentence and
grant of bail, as he has been convicted and sentenced under Section
302/34 of IPC for Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-.
      Initially the case was argued for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant but in view of the evidence adduced
by the prosecution on making certain query the appellant's counsel
seeks permission to withdraw this IA with liberty to file the
appropriate application for early hearing of this appeal on merits.
      Considering his prayer, IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not
pressed with aforesaid liberties.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                      (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                             W. P. No.12634/2014.
15.9.2014.
          Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner
          Although this matter is listed today as item No.744 in the list
of common conditional orders but petitioner's counsel by referring
the cause list said that this matter is included in such list without
raising any default. In continuation he said that mere perusal of
cause list it is apparent that this case is due for admission and interim
relief.
          On perusing the cause list such submission is found correct.
As the case is mature for admission and interim relief, the same is
taken for consideration.
          Having heard on the question of admission it is directed that
on payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within
seven working days notice against admission of this petition as well
as the interim relief, returnable by fixing a date within six weeks be
issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.
          As an interim measure the authorities of the respondents are
directed to preserve the records of impugned examination till next
hearing of this petition.
          C. C. as per rules.
                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                          W. P. No.13642/2014.
15.9.2014.
        Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Sernior Advocate assisted by Shri T. K.
Khadka, learned counsel for the petitioners.
        Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent No.1 to 3.
        Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
No.4.
        At the request of Senior counsel Shri Rajendra Tiwari, this
case is taken up out of its turn from the list of motion hearing cases
because he said that it is an emergent matter, as the Corporation
election is to be held by the end of this year and if this petition is not
heard today then the petitioners have to suffer a lot.
        I am apprised by Shri Tiwari that on behalf of the petitioners/
citizen of some some villagers of Jabalpur Tahsil this writ petition is
preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India against including
their villages in the limit of Municipal Corporation Jabalpur contrary
to the provisions and procedure prescribed under the law.
        On the other hand Standing counsel of respondent No.4 Shri
Anshuman Singh submits that after adopting the provisions and the
procedure prescribed under the law the villages of the petitioners
have already been included in the Corporation limit of Jabalpur, for
which gazette notification in Extra-ordinary gazette of State of
Madhya Pradesh dated 25.7.2014 has also been published.                 In
continuation he also apprised me that with respect of disputes raised
in this petition a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) bearing W. P.
No.13923/14 (Gram Panchayat Umaria Vs. State of M. P. & Ors) is
pending before the Division Bench of this Court which has been
 directed to be listed after three weeks and prayed to hear this petition
along with such writ petition.
       In the aforesaid circumstances when with respect of the
disputes raised in this petition the aforesaid W. P. PIL is pending for
adjudication before the Division Bench then instead to hear this
petition today on admission, the same is adjourned with a direction
to the office to examine the matter and it be placed along with
aforesaid writ petition (PIL) before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on
some early date probably within five working days for appropriate
order and directions and subject to such order/direction this matter
be placed before the appropriate Bench.
       The interim relief granted earlier is continued till next hearing
of this petition.
       C. C. as per rules.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.13974/14.
15.9.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submits that inspite his intimation he is not
under the receipt of case diary and seeks short adjournment to call
and produce the same.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 24.9.2014.
      Mean while State counsel is directed to call the case diary and
produce on the next date of hearing.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.13892-14.
15.9.2014.
      Sjhri S. K. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submits that inspite his intimation he is not
under the receipt of case diary and seeks short adjournment to call
and produce the same.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 24.9.2014.
      Mean while State counsel is directed to call the case diary and
produce on the next date of hearing.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.12197/14.
15.9.2014.
      Shri Teekaram Patel learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P. L. counsel submit that he is under the receipt of
case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 7.6.2014 in
connection of Crime No.209/14, registered at Police Station
Anuppur for the offence punishable under Section 419, 384, 323 and
294 of IPC.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the charge sheet keeping in view that charge sheet has been
filed and alleged offence is triable of JMFC and trial will take on its
own time, that may be years together so also nature of evidence
collected by the investigating agency, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is allowed.
      It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand), along with one surety of like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant shall be released on
bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of hearing
before the trial court.     His single non-appearance before the trial
court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                              (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                    Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.12037/14.
15.9.2014.
         None for the applicant.
         Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of the case
diary.
         It being repeat petition in the absence of the applicant's
counsel, the same is adjourned with a direction to place under the
same head in the week commencing 6.10.2014.


                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                      M. Cr. C. No.11473/2014.
15.9.2014.
      Shri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State
assisted by Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant
Hemant Arora, the brother of the deceased.
      Initially the case was argued at length on this repeat petition
for grant of bail to the applicant but in view of the available evidence
collected by the investigating agency and filed with the charge sheet
on making certain query, on which instead to argue further the
petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not
pressed.
      Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                           Cr.. A. No.514/14.
16.9.2014.
      Shri S. C. Datt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sidharth
Datt, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.9509/14
and IA No.13581/14, second and third repeat applications of the
appellant for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of
bail but at the outset the Senior counsel of the appellant seeks
permission to withdraw IA No.9509/14, as not pressed with liberty
to press IA No.13581/14.
      Considering his prayer IA No.9509/14, is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to press IA No.13581/14.
      Senior counsel seeks short adjournment to file some additional
documents before making submission on the aforesaid IA.
      Considering such prayer case is adjourned with a direction to
place this matter under the same head in the next week.
      Meanwhile the assisting counsel of the appellant may file the
additional documents, as prayed.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                       (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                     Judge
k
                           Cr.. A. No.2591/13.
16.9.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1.
      Smt. Varsha Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
      Counsel of respondent No.2 submits that in compliance of the
order dated 12.8.2014 she is going to file an application for
condoning the non-appearance of respondent No.2 on such date in
the Registry during the course of the day. She prayed that such
respondent has come to this Court, so his presence be taken on
record.
      Subject to filing aforesaid application, the presence of the
respondent No.2 is taken on record, he is identified by his counsel.
      After marking his presence on record, he is directed to furnish
his personal bond of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court
within thirty days with an undertaking that he shall remain represent
before the Registry of this court firstly on 10.12.2014 and on such
other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of this
appeal.
      Case be listed accordingly.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                       (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                     Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2543/13.
16.9.2014.
      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the appellant/State.
      Service report of non-bailable warrant issued against the
respondent in compliance of the order dated 16.5.2014 is still
awaited.
      Let the same be requisitioned within one month and place
before the Court on the next hearing.
      Apart the aforesaid a fresh non-bailable warrant by fixing a
date in the month of January, 2015 be issued against the respondent.
The same be sent through Superintendent of Police, Satna for its
execution under his guidance and supervision by taking all efforts to
trace out such respondent, so the same be not returned back
unserved.
      The executing officer of the warrant is directed to remain
present on the aforesaid date to explain the circumstance in which
the warrant could not be executed, if such warrant is not executed till
said date.
      It is made clear that if such warrant is executed then presence
of such official would not be required.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                             Cr. R. No.245/08.
16.9.2014.
         None for the the applicant.
         Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1/
State.
         In compliance of the order dated 16.7.2014, respondent No.2
is not present today. In such premises, office is directed to secure
the presence of respondent No.2 by issuing fresh non-bailable
warrant against him. The same be made returnable by fixing a date in
the month of November, 2014.



         (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
               Judge                                   Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1633/05.
16.9.2014.
      Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the the appellants.
      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In compliance of the order dated 2.9.2014, the appellant No.1
is not present. On asking in this regard, on which counsel of the
appellants submit that he is going to file the appropriate application
in this regard within two working days with a further prayer to
extend one more opportunity to keep present the appellant No.1
before the Court.
      Subject to filing the aforesaid application within two days,
office is directed to list this matter on 17.11.2014 for appearance of
the appellant No.1 and if such application is not filed within the
aforesaid period of two days then office is directed to secure the
presence of the appellant No.1 on the aforesaid date by issuing
bailable warrant of Rs.15,000/- against him. The same be issued
within five working days.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                            Cr. R. No.860/1997.
16.9.2014.
         Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the the applicant.
         Shri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
         Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2/
State.
         On asking the counsel of respondent No.1 whether respondent
No.1 has come for appearance before the Court, on which he submits
that being busy to look after his son at Nagpur, could not come
today. On asking the name of son of the appellant, diseased from
which he is suffering and name of the hospital in which he is taking
the treatment then counsel of the respondent No.1 could not reply
any of such query.
         Hearing on IA No.17395/14, an application of respondent
No.1 for condoning his non-appearance is deferred till next date of
hearing and office is directed to secure the presence of the
respondent No.1 by issuing bailable warrant of Rs.15,000/- against
him. The same be made returnable by fixing a date in the month of
January, 2015.



         (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
               Judge                                 Judge
k
                           Cr.. A. No.610/94.
16.9.2014.
      Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for respondent/ State.
      Service report of bailable warrant issued against the appellant
in compliance of the order dated 24.7.2014 is still awaited.
      Let the same be requisitioned within one month and place
before the Court on the next hearing.
      Apart the aforesaid office is directed to issue a fresh bailable
warrant of Rs.20,000/- against the appellant by fixing a date in the
month of January, 2015.
      Case be listed accordingly.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                             W. P. No.5832/14.
16.9.2014.
         Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner
         Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
         After sitting this Bench at 2.30 p. m. this case was mentioned
for hearing today by the counsel of the petitioner, on which the
Reader was directed to place this matter after 3.30 p. m. On asking
the Reader at 3.30 p. m. to place the matter, on which he submits that
inspite intimation to the office the file of this petition has not been
sent to this Court, on which the Reader was directed to place the file
as soon as it comes from the office. The file of this case has come to
this court at 4.30 p. m. when the Court was hearing some other
matter.
         In the newly implemented roster system it is very unfortunate
that after listing the matter before the Bench contrary to the direction
of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, by holding the case in the Registry, the
concerning officials are creating the obstruction in hearing of the
cases.     In such premises, inspite mentioning the case by the
petitioners counsel in the lack of file, as the same was not sent to the
Bench for one reason or another best known to the officials of the
Registry, the same could not be taken for hearing in the working
hours of the court.
         I am of the considered view that such act of the Registry and
its officials is apparently contrary to the system of the newly
implemented policy of roster promulgated by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice, as such by holding the file in the office they have not only
ignoring the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice but they have also
 created the obstruction in discharging the judicial function of this
Bench     Hence, the Principal Registrar (J) is directed to take
appropriate disciplinary action against the concerning delinquent
official of the Registry, who has committed aforesaid act under
intimation to this Court.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head on 22.9.2014.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                         W. P. No.10569/14.
16.9.2014.
      Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner
      Shri Adil Usmani, Advocate has given his appearance on
behalf of respondent No.1 and 3.
      Shri Usmani submits that inspite filing the Vakalatnama on
behalf of such respondents his name has not been circulated in the
daily cause list and for want of knowledge he has not come prepared
with the matter and seeks short adjournment.
      Considering his prayer office is directed to place this matter
under the same head in the next week by circulating the name of Shri
Adil Usmani, Advocate as counsel of respondent No.1 and 3 in the
daily cause list.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2332 of 2014.
17.9.2014.
      Shri A. K. Soni, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
       This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question of
entertainability of this appeal.
       As per office note before filing the present Cr. A. No.2332/14,
on 23.8.2014 at the instance of the appellant against the impugned
judgment a Cr. A. No.2253/14 was already filed on 19.8.2014 and in
such premises this subsequent appeal is not entertainable.
       On perusing the record of Cr. A. No.2253/14, we have found that
after entertaining the same has been admitted on 11.9.2014 for final
hearing in presence of the counsel of the appellant Shri P. N. Yadav
and P. L. Shri Santosh Yadav, for the respondent.
       On asking the appellant's counsel that in view of admission of
aforesaid earlier appeal filed by the appellant how this subsequent
appeal could be entertained and considered for admission, on which the
appellant's counsel submits that he appellant has given him the
Vakalatnama to file this appeal before filing the aforesaid earlier appeal
and on the basis of his Vakalatnama he has filed the present appeal. In
continuation he said that he was the counsel of the appellant before trial
court also and copy of the impugned judgment supplied by the trial
Court to the accused was given to him to file the appeal, the same is
annexed with this appeal, accordingly he is duly engaged counsel of the
appellant. He further said that unless his Vakalatnama is terminated by
the appellant the Court did not have any authority to pass any order to
dismiss subsequent appeal in the light of admission of earlier appeal.
He further said that by calling the appellant before the Court such fact
may be verified whether he has authorize him to file the appeal or not.
       Keeping in view aforesaid arguments, we have carefully gone
through the earlier Cr. A. No.2253/14. True it is that such appeal was
filed along with photo copy of the impugned judgment so also by
annexing the memo of appearance by the concerning lawyer only and
not with the Vakalatnama of the appellant but we have found one
distinguishable feature in the both the appeals that subsequent appeal
has been filed by the appearing counsel of the appellant only on behalf
of Smt. Raman Bai, an con-convicted accused while the earlier appeal
was filed on behalf of both the convicted accused.
      We are of the considered view that after entertaining the earlier
appeal of both the appellants by this Court and passing the order on
admission, this subsequent appeal could not be entertained again for
any purpose and in this regard any verification from the appellant, as
prayed by the counsel is also not required.
      In view of the provision of Section 374 of Cr. P. C. only one
appeal against conviction and sentence        is permissible and earlier
appeal has already been entertained and admitted for final hearing,
thefore, this being subsequent appeal is hereby dismissed with liberty to
the present appellant Smt. Raman Bai to prosecute aforesaid earlier
pending Cr. A. No.2253/14 through counsel of her choice. The
appearing counsel of the appellant shall also be at liberty to prosecute
such earlier appeal on behalf of the present appellant but subject to
filing his fresh Vakalatnama in such earlier appeal.
      Office is directed to keep the record of this appeal always with
the Cr. A. No.2253/14, till disposal of such appeal.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                       (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
             Judge                                   Judge
k
                          W. P. No.10777/14.
16.9.2014.
      Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      At the request of the petitioner's counsel the case is taken up
out of its turn from the list of motion hearing cases.
      Although this case is listed today for admission but I deem fit
to hear the same after calling the case diary of Crime No.127/14
from the P. S. Kotwali, Damoh, hence learned P. L. is directed to call
the case diary within fifteen days and place on the next date of
hearing.
      Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 6.10.2014.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                           S. A. No.1047/11
18.9.2014.
      Shri D. K. Mishra learned counsel for the the appellant.
      It being an admitted appeal is listed today for consideration of
IA No.12537/14, appellant's application under Order 41 Rule 5 of
CPC but in the absence of the counsel of the respondent one more
opportunity is extended to the respondent to make his submission.
Consequently, the case is adjourned with a direction place under the
same head in the week commencing 27.10.2014.
      The interim order passed earlier is continued till next hearing.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                            S. A. No.768/11.
18.9.2014.
      Shri K. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Considering the prayer of the learned P. L. counsel of the
appellant is directed to supply         copy of IA No.9434/11, an
application under Section 5 of Limitation Act within three days
enabling the State authorities to file the reply of the same.
      Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 27.10.2014
for consideration of IA No.9434/11.

                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                          S. A. No.644/2011.
18.9.2014.
      None for the the appellant.
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2.
      Having perused the IA No.7604/12, an application filed on
behalf of appellant signed by his counsel Shri Sanjay Patel
permitting him to withdraw this appeal, for the reasons stated in it
the same is allowed and appellant is permitted to withdraw this
appeal. Pursuant to it, this appeal is dismissed, as withdraw and not
pressed. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         S. A. No.407/2011.
18.9.2014.
     None for the the appellant.
     Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
     In the absence of the appellant's counsel the case is adjourned.



                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                           S. A. No.359/11.
18.9.2014.
      Shri Rajesh Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Appellant's counsel submits that in compliance of the order
dated 11.4.2014, he has submitted the requisite process for issuing
notice to the respondents but it appears from the record that such
process has not been submitted according to the direction of the
Court. Hence, appellant's counsel is directed to verify the position
and if process is not submitted according to the Court direction then
same be submitted within ten days from today, failing which this
appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference
to the Bench.
                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                            S. A. No.321/11.
18.9.2014.
      Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Rohit Sagora, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2.
      Having heard on IA No.7547/12, appellant's application for
early hearing of this appeal, keeping in view the pendency of various
old second appeals, the same is dismissed at this stage.
      The counsel of the respondent No.1 seeks for and is granted a
period of three weeks to file the reply of IA No.3359/11, appellant's
application for grant of an order directing the respondents to
maintain the status-quo.
      Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 27.10.2014
for consideration of aforesaid IA.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           C. R. No.274/11.
18.9.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      None for respondent No.1, although served.
      The notices of IA No.7593/11 and IA No.7591/11, issued to
the respondent No.2 and 3 are received back unserved. In such
premises, it is directed that on payment of P. F. along with requisites
of registered post within seven days fresh notice as directed earlier,
returnable by fixing a date within three months be issued to the
respondent No.2 and 3, failing which this revision shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.



                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                            F. A. No.143/11.
18.9.2014.
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. the appellant/State.
      Shri Sandip Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents.
      The counsel of the respondents seek for and is granted a
period of fifteen days either to submit the deficit Court Fess in the
Cross-objection or to file appropriate application in this regard,
failing which cross-objection shall stand dismissed automatically
without further reference to the Bench and in such circumstance,
only appeal shall proceed further for final adjudication.



                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                           S. A. No.104/11.
18.9.2014.
      Shri Wakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Arun Nema, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Counsel of respondent No.1 seeks for and is granted a period
of three weeks to file the reply of IA No.677/11, the stay application.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head after three weeks.
      The interim order passed earlier is continued till next hearing.



                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          S. A. No.20/2011.
18.9.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      None for respondent No.1 and 2.
      Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
      In the absence of the appellant the case is adjourned with a
direction to place under the same head after two months.

                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                          M. A. No.4651/10.
18.9.2014.
      Shri Ajit Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
      None for respondent No.1 to 4, although served.
      Notices issued to respondent No.6 is received back unserved
with a note that he has refused to take the same. In such premises, it
is held that such respondent is duly served and appeal is directed to
be proceeded ex-parte against respondent No.6.
      As per office not service report of respondent No.5 is still
awaited.
      Let the same be requisitioned within three weeks and case be
listed along with such report so also M. A. No.4982/10, after three
weeks.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.14279/14.
18.9.2014.
      Shri K. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P.L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      He also apprise me that this petition is preferred by
manufacturer of the concerning seeds by which the agriculturalist
has been defrauded while earlier to this a petition was filed by the
Dealer of the seeds namely Shri Pankaj Jain under Section 438 of Cr.
P. C. and the same was considered and decided by this Bench vide
order dated 13.8.2014 in M. Cr. C. No.12228/14.
      In view of the aforesaid, office is directed to list this matter
under the same head along with the record of M. Cr. C. No.12228/14
in the next week.
      Learned P. L. is directed to produce the case diary on the next
date of hearing.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           S. A. No.1162/10.
18.9.2014.
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri P. S.
Das, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
      None for respondent No.2, 4 to 6, 11 and 19, although served.
      Respondent No.3, 7, 8 to 10, 12 to 18 and 20 are still
unserved.
       Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned P. L. for the respondent No.21.
      It appears from the impugned judgment of the appellate Court
that respondent No.17, 18 and 20 were proceeded ex-parte before
such Court under Order 41 Rule 14 (4) of CPC, the notices against
such respondents are hereby dispensed with.
      I am of the considered view unless the notices of IA
No.12364/10, appellant's application of Section 5 of Limitation Act
for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is served on the
remaining unserved respondents No.3, 7, 8 to 10, 12 to 18 and 20,
the same could not be considered and decided on merits, hence, the
hearing on aforesaid IA is hereby deferred.
      In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that on payment of P. F.
along with requisites of registered post and correct address of
unserved respondents within seven days fresh notices of aforesaid IA
as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date within three months be
issued to such respondents, failing which this appeal shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.10666/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent/ EOW.
      Applicant's counsel is directed to supply an additional copy of
the petition along with annexures to the counsel of the respondent
within three days
      Apart the aforesaid respondent's counsel is directed to call the
case diary of the impugned case before next hearing.
      Let this matter be listed along with connected M. Cr. C.
No.10663/14 and M. Cr. C. No.10883/14 in the week commencing
13.10.2014.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.10470/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the applicant/ State
seeks for and is granted short adjournment to go through the record
of the trial Court before making his submission on admission.
      Let this matter be placer after two months, as prayed.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.10432/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri S. K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent/ EOW.
      Applicant's counsel is directed to supply an additional copy of
the petition along with annexures to the counsel of the respondent
within three days
      Apart the aforesaid respondent's counsel is directed to call the
case diary of the impugned case before next hearing.
      Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 27.10.2014.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.10288/14.
19.9.2014.
         Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the applicant/ State.
      Let notice of I. A. No.13490/14, an application under Section
5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the petition,
returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued
to the respondents.
      Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be
taken within five working days, failing which this revision shall
stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the
Bench.
      Case be listed accordingly.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.9836/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Mohd Amzad, learned counsel for the respondent.
      At the request of the counsel present, case is adjourned with a
direction to place under the same head in the next week.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.9043/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the          applicant/
Lokayukt.
      At his request the case is adjourned with a direction to place
after one month or in any case in the month of November, 2014.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.9002/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri G. S. Alhuwaliya, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri   Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent/
Lokayukt.
      Respondent's counsel is directed to call the case diary of the
impugned case positively before next hearing to assist the Court to
consider the question of admission.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head along with
connected M. Cr. C. No.5340/14, M. Cr. C. No.6158/14 and M. Cr.
C. No.6161/14 in the week commencing 13.10.2014.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.8932/14.
19.9.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      In the absence of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned
with a direction to place under the same head after two months.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.8717/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the applicant/ State
seeks for and is granted short adjournment to go through the record
of the trial Court before making his submission on admission.
      Let this matter be placer after three weeks, as prayed.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                      M. Cr. C. No.8707/14.
19.9.2014.
     Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the applicant/ State.
     Let the record of the trial Court be requisitioned positively
within one month and case be listed immediately thereafter aofr
admission.



     (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
           Judge                                 Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.8699/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the applicant/ State
seeks for and is granted short adjournment to go through the record
of the trial Court before making his submission on admission.
      Let this matter be placer after three weeks, as prayed.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                   Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No. 9243/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on the question of admission.
      On behalf of the applicant/ State this petition is preferred
under Section 378(3) of Cr. P. C. for grant of leave against the
judgment dated 11.2.2014 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Panna in S.T. No.156/2011 whereby the respondents have
been acquitted from the charge of Section 498-A, 304-B in alternate
Section 306 of IPC.
      Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments after
perusing the record of the trial Court, we are of the considered view
that in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
exhibited papers of the charge sheet, so also in view of provision of
presumption of Section 113-A and 113-B of Evidence, the impugned
judgment requires reconsideration at this stage. Hence, by allowing
this petition leave to appeal, as prayed is hereby granted. Pursuant to
it, office is directed to register this matter as Cr. Appeal within
fifteen days.
      Subject to aforesaid registration as Criminal Appeal State
counsel is heard on the question of admission.
      Admit.
      Let the presence of the respondents be secured before this
Court by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 by issuing
bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against each of them.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No. 8700/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on the question of admission.
      On behalf of the applicant/ State this petition is preferred
under Section 378(3) of Cr. P. C. for grant of leave against the
judgment dated 13.2.2014 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.346/2012 whereby the respondents have
been acquitted from the charge of Section 304-B and in alternate
Section 302, 498-A and 306 of IPC.
      Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments after
perusing the record of the trial Court, we are of the considered view
that in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
exhibited papers of the charge sheet, so also in view of provision of
presumption of Section 113-A and 113-B of Evidence, the impugned
judgment requires reconsideration at this stage. Hence, by allowing
this petition leave to appeal, as prayed is hereby granted. Pursuant to
it, office is directed to register this matter as Cr. Appeal within
fifteen days.
      Subject to aforesaid registration as Criminal Appeal State
counsel is heard on the question of admission.
      Admit.
      Let the presence of the respondents be secured before this
Court by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 by issuing
bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against each of them.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                              Cr. A. No.2133/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Mohd Amjad, learned counsel for the respondent/ CBI.
      Heard on I. A. No.15468/14, appellant's application for
suspension of her remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as she
has been convicted under Section 120, 420 r/w Section 120-B, 467,
468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act for RI five years with fine of
Rs.35,000/- separately in earlier six counts while RI three years with
fine of Rs.10,000/- in in last count.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced, after
perusing the record of the trial Court tagged with Cr. A. No.2116/14,
taking into consideration the short terms of the jail sentence and the
appellant was remained on bail during trial, in the available
circumstances,, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
matter, I. A. is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the
fine amount, her remaining jail sentence is hereby suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial court appellant be released on bail with further direction
to appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on 3.12.2014 and
on all subsequent dates which are given by the office in this regard
till disposal of this appeal.
       C. C. as per rules.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                      (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                              Cr. A. No.2132/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri Mohd Amjad, learned counsel for the respondent/ CBI.
      Heard on I. A. No.15469/14, appellant's application for
suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as he has
been convicted under Section 120, 420 r/w Section 120-B, 467, 468,
471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act for RI five years with fine of
Rs.35,000/- separately in earlier six counts while RI three years with
fine of Rs.10,000/- in in last count.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced, after
perusing the record of the trial Court tagged with Cr. A. No.2116/14,
taking into consideration the short terms of the jail sentence and that
the appellant was remained on bail during trial, in the available
circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
matter, I. A. is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the
fine amount, his remaining jail sentence is hereby suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial court appellant be released on bail with further direction
to appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on 3.12.2014 and
on all subsequent dates which are given by the office in this regard
till disposal of this appeal.
       C. C. as per rules.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                      (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                              Cr. A. No.2126/14.
19.9.2014.
       Shri G. S. Ahluwaliya, learned counsel for the the appellant.
       Shri Mohd Amjad, learned counsel for the respondent/ CBI.
       At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw
IA No.15431/14, appellant's application for grant of stay against recovery
of imposed fine amount as not pressed.
      Considering such prayer aforesaid IA is dismissed as withdrawn
and not pressed.
      Heard on I. A. No.15430/14, appellant's application for suspension
of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as he has been convicted
under Section 120, 420 r/w Section 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC
and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
for RI five years with fine of Rs.35,000/- separately in earlier six counts
while RI three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in in last count.
       Having heard     keeping in view the arguments advanced, after
perusing the record of the trial Court tagged with Cr. A. No.2116/14,
taking into consideration the short terms of the jail sentence and that the
appellant was remained on bail during trial, in the available
circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, I.
A. is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount, his
remaining jail sentence is hereby suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-
along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court
appellant be released on bail with further direction to appear before the
Registry of this Court firstly on 3.12.2014 and on all subsequent dates
which are given by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
       C. C. as per rules.

       (U. C. Maheshwari)                         (Subhash Kakade)
              Judge                                     Judge
k
                              Cr. A. No.2124/14.
19.9.2014.
       Shri G. S. Ahluwaliya, learned counsel for the the appellant.
       Shri Mohd Amjad, learned counsel for the respondent/ CBI.
       At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw
IA No.15428/14, appellant's application for grant of stay against recovery
of imposed fine amount as not pressed.
      Considering such prayer aforesaid IA is dismissed as withdrawn
and not pressed.
      Heard on I. A. No.15426/14, appellant's application for suspension
of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as he has been convicted
under Section 120, 420 r/w Section 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC
and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
for RI five years with fine of Rs.35,000/- separately in earlier six counts
while RI three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in in last count.
       Having heard      keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the record of the trial Court tagged with Cr. A. No.2116/14,
taking into consideration the short terms of the jail sentence and that the
appellant was remained on bail during trial, in the available
circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, I.
A. is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount, his
remaining jail sentence is hereby suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-
along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court
appellant be released on bail with further direction to appear before the
Registry of this Court firstly on 3.12.2014 and on all subsequent dates
which are given by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
       C. C. as per rules.

       (U. C. Maheshwari)                         (Subhash Kakade)
              Judge                                     Judge
k
                              Cr. A. No.2116/14.
19.9.2014.
       Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the the appellant.
       Shri Mohd Amjad, learned counsel for the respondent/ CBI.
       At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw
IA No.17621/14, appellant's application for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail for temporary period, as become infructuous.
       Considering his prayer aforesaid IA is dismissed as become
infructuous.
       Heard on I. A. No.15440/14, appellant's application for suspension
of her remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as she has been convicted
under Section 120, 420 r/w Section 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC
and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
for RI five years with fine of Rs.35,000/- separately in earlier six counts
while RI three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in in last count.
       Having heard      keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the record of the trial Court, taking into consideration the short
terms of the jail sentence and the appellant was remained on bail during
trial, in the available circumstances,, without expressing any opinion on
merits of the matter, I. A. is allowed and subject to verification of
depositing the fine amount, her remaining jail sentence is hereby
suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-
along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court
appellant be released on bail with further direction to appear before the
Registry of this Court firstly on 3.12.2014 and on all subsequent dates
which are given by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
       C. C. as per rules.

       (U. C. Maheshwari)                         (Subhash Kakade)
              Judge                                     Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.3080/13.
19.9.2014.
     None for the appellant.
     Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
     In the absence of the appellant's counsel the case is adjourned.



     (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Subhash Kakade)
           Judge                                 Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1387/14.
19.9.2014.
      Shri Hemendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In view of listing the case IA No.18549/14, appellant's
application for early hearing of IA No.18548/14, repeat application
filed on behalf of appellant No.2 for suspension of jail sentence and
grant of bail for temporary period to manage the affairs of list rite of
his mother, does not require any further consideration. Hence IA
No.18549/14, is hereby disposed of.
      We deem fit to hear the arguments on IA No.18548/14, after
calling the verification report regarding death of mother of the
appellant No.2. Hence, learned P. L. is directed to call and place the
verification report before next hearing.
      Office is directed to place this matter for consideration of IA
No.18548/14 on 22.9.2014.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.490/09.
19.9.2014.
      Smt. Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant..
      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on IA No.17629/14, appellant's third repeat application
for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as his
first earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 9.9.2009 while second application was dismissed
for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.8.2014.
      Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view the
arguments on perusing the record we have found the eyewitness
account of Manita Bai (P.W.5) and Imarti Bai (P.W.6), according to
their deposition they saw the alleged incident, in which the deceased
was beaten by the appellant and such evidence is further supported
by the other witnesses and the circumstances also, so in such
premises we have found sufficient prima-facie circumstance against
the appellant for committing the alleged offence. Consequently, IA
is hereby dismissed.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                      (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.303/09.
19.9.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today along with Cr. A. No.490/09, as
reference case.
      After passing the order in such other appeal, this case is
adjourned with a direction to place this matter always along with
aforesaid Cr. A. No.490/09.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                         S. A. No.2624/2005
22.9.2014.
      None for the appellant as well as for respondent No.2.
      Respondent No.1 is reportedly dead.
      On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post
within seven days notice of aforesaid IA No.5031/11 as well as of IA
No.10976/11,     appellant's   applications   to   substitute   legal
representatives of respondent No.1 on record, returnable by fixing a
date within three months be issued to the proposed legal
representatives of the deceased respondent No.1, as mentioned in IA
No.5031/2011, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed
automatically without further reference to the Bench.



                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                          S. A. No.1380/05.
22.9.2014.
      Shri V. K. Shnrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
      This matter is listed today for admission but appellant's
counsel submits that he has been recently engaged in the matter and
before making submission on admission he wants to go through the
record of the Courts below and seeks short adjournment.
      Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to
place under the same head after six weeks.



                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                             S. A. No.253/05.
22.9.2014.
        Shri Sameer Seth learned counsel for the appellant.
        Shri Himanshu Chourasiya, learned counsel for respondent
No.1.
        Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent No.2/State.
        The name of the respondent No.3 is mentioned on record as
dead person.
        At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to
withdraw IA No.983/05, an application for grant of stay against
execution of impugned decree with liberty to file appropriate
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad-
interim injunction against the respondent.
        Considering the aforesaid prayer IA is dismissed as withdrawn
and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.



                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                               F. A. No.59/05.
22.9.2014.
          None for the appellants.
          Shri M. Saphiqullah, learned counsel for respondent No.1(i) to
1(iii).
          Shri Istiaq Hussain learned counsel for respondent No.1 (iv).
          Instead to argue the case on IA No.14241/13, today the
counsel of respondent No.1(iv) seeks for and is granted short
adjournment for further preparation of the matter.
          Let this matter be listed under the same head in the month of
November, 2014.

                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                             F. A. No.263/2000.
22.9.2014.
       None for the appellant as well as respondent No.1 to 3.
       Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent No.4/ State.
       Respondent No.5 is reportedly dead.
       This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.5830/07,
appellant's application for brining the legal heirs of respondent No.5 on
record.
       As per averments of IA the respondent No.5 has passed away on
2.3.2006 and this IA has been preferred on 14.5.2007.           So, in such
premises, it is apparent that the same has been filed barred by limitation of
90 days provided under the Limitation Act. It is also apparent such IA has
been preferred without annexing the application under Order 22 Rule 9 of
CPC for setting aside the abatement of appeal and an application under
Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid
proceeding.
       The abatement in a civil case being automatic process, on expiry of
90 days from the date of the death of respondent No.5, this appeal has
already become abated against such respondent No.5 and in the lack of
any application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC as well as of Section 5 of
Limitation Act the aforesaid IA No.5830/07, is not entertainable.
Consequently, in view of abatement of appeal against respondent No.5,
this IA being not entertainable is hereby dismissed.
       Now this matter be listed in the month of November, 2014 to
consider the question whether on death of respondent No.5 and non
brining his legal representative on record within the prescribed period, this
appeal has become abated in toto or the same is become abated till the
extent of respondent No.5 only.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                 Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.14427/14.
22.9.2014.
        Shri R. K. Shukla learned counsel for the applicant.
        Shri S. Beg, learned counsel for respondent/ CBI.
        Counsel of the respondent seeks short adjournment to call and
produce the case dairy of the matter.
        Let this matter be listed along with M. Cr. C. No.14612/14, on
8.10.2014.
        Meanwhile the case diary be called and produced on such
date.

                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.10880/14.
22.9.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Name of the respondent No.1 has already been deleted.
      Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      In the absence of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned
with a direction to place under the same head after four weeks.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Conc No.1148/17.
22.9.2014.
      Shri R. K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Greeshm Jain for the respondent.
      Respondent's counsel submits that he has filed the reply of this
petition on 13.9.2014. The same is not placed with the record.
      Let this matter be listed along with reply on 7.10.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          W. P. No.8750;/13.
22.9.2014.
       Shri R. K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner
       Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent 1 to 3 and 8.
     Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 to 7.
     Heard on IA No.8897/14, petitioner's application permitting
him to adopt the rejoinder filed in response of the return of
respondent No.4 to 7 in response of the return of respondent No.1 to
3 and 8 also.
       Having heard considering the        prayer of the petitioner's
counsel in the available circumstance by allowing the IA he is
permitted to adopt the rejoinder filed in response of the return of
respondent No.4 to 7 in response of the return of respondent No.1 to
3 and 8 also.
       Case is also listed for consideration of IA No.11781/14, an
application filed on behalf of respondent No.4 to 7 for early hearing
of this petition.
       With permission of the Court the assisting counsel of
respondent No.4 to 7 has corrected the nomenclature of the party
whereby at the place of the petitioner he has stated for respondent
No. 4 to 7.
       I am apprised by the assisting counsel of the respondent No.4
to 7 that vide order dated 11.12.2013, office was directed to list this
matter for final hearing on 9th of January, 2014. In such premises the
Senior counsel prayed to allow the aforesaid application and hear the
matter on merits today. I am also apprised by the counsel of the
parties present that the pleading of parties are complete.
       On asking the counsel of the petitioner, on which he has also
given his consent to make his submission on merits. On asking that
how much time is required for his argument on which he said that he
may take near about half and hour and probably same time would be
required to other side also.
      Looking to the long list of motion hearing cases such much
time is not available today with the Court. So, in such premises the
case is adjourned with a direction to place this matter on 7.10.2014
for final disposal.
      Such direction has been given keeping in view the earlier
direction of the Court directing to list the matter for final disposal.


                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                            S. A. No.961/11.
22.9.2014.
      Shri Sajidulla Khan, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri J. K. Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
      None for respondent No.2, although served.
      Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on IA No.1452/2012, an application filed on behalf of
respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad
interim injunction against the appellants restraining them and their
agents from any interference in his possession of the suit land
bearing survey No.102/1, 103/1/2, 104/1/2 having area 1.86 acres
situated at Pathariya Hat, District Sagar with further prayer to direct
the appellants not to alienate, transfer or create any third party
interest in respect of the aforesaid land in pendency of this appeal.
      Initially after taking me through the record of the trial Court
and the impugned judgment so also the interlocutory orders of the
trial Court as well as of the appellate Court passed in pendency of
the suit and appeal, the counsel of the respondent No.1 submits that
although this appeal has been filed by the defendants/ appellants
against the judgment of the appellate Court whereby allowing the
appeal of this respondent in Part the earlier decree of COS No.8-
A/03, passed vide dated 6.12.2003 in favour of the appellants (not of
the impugned matter) has been held not to be binding against the
respondent No.1 with a direction to the appellants to implead the
present respondent No.1 in his aforesaid earlier decreed suit and
pursuant to it the trial court of such earlier decreed suit has also been
directed for holding the fresh trial after impleading the respondent
 No.1 as party and only against such part of the decree of the
appellate Court the appellants/defendants have come to this Court.
On consideration by framing some substantial questions of law this
appeal has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated
25.11.2011 and by way of interim order the operation and execution
of the impugned decree of the appellate Court has been stayed. In
continuation he said that in view of such interim stay order the
appellants under execution of aforesaid earlier decree of COS No.8-
A/03 are trying to take the possession of his land bearing survey
No.576 while such land belongs to the respondent No.1 under
Bhoomiswami rights.
      At this stage the appellants' counsel by referring some papers
said that under execution of his earlier decree they have already
taken the possession of the concerning decreetal land vide dated
11.2.2005 through execution Court.             Such submission of the
appellant's counsel is also taken on record.
      In further arguments the counsel of the respondent No.1 said
that if the appellants are not restrained to take the possession of his
land under execution of aforesaid earlier decree then in pendency of
this appeal at any moment the appellants may dispossesses the
respondent No.1 from his impugned disputed land.
      At this stage on asking the counsel of the respondent No.1 that
according to his case the respondent No.1 / plaintiff is in possession
of the disputed land but it is apparent that his impugned suit filed for
declaration and perpetual injunction have already been dismissed by
both the Courts below by giving the aforesaid limited relief to such
respondent by the appellate Court that aforesaid earlier decree of
 COS No.8-A/03 passed in favour of the present appellants is not
binding against the respondent No.1 with a further direction to the
appellants to implead the respondent No.1 in his decreed suit along
with the direction to the trial Court of such earlier decreed suit to
hold further trial of the same and in such premises when the
appellate court has already held that aforesaid decree is not binding
against the respondent No.1 then how such respondent No.1 has a
right to get interlocutory injunction as prayed in the present appeal
along with the query that after dismissal of the suit of the present
respondent No.1 by both the courts below how on the basis of
interim injunction passed by the interlocutory orders in pendency of
the suit and appeal contrary to the findings of the final judgment of
such court the prayed interlocutory injunction could be issued
against the appellants, specially when no appeal has been preferred
by this respondent No.1 against the part of the impugned judgment
whereby the appellate court has affirmed the findings of the trial
court dismissing his suit, on which the respondent's counsel submits
that in view of interim order of this court staying the operation and
execution of the appellate Court's judgment the appellants may take

the possession of his land   at any moment by executing the aforesaid
decree because the executing Court of such earlier decree is also
bound by the aforesaid interim stay of this Court against the
impugned judgment by which the aforesaid earlier decree of the
appellants has been held not to be binding against the respondent
No.1. Again on asking the counsel of respondent No.1 that if he is in
possession of the disputed land in his independent title then he has a
right to resist aforesaid earlier decree passed in COS No.8-A/03 and
 for that purpose the remedy is available to the respondent under the
provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC then how this IA could be
considered by this court, on which after perusing such provision, the
counsel of respondent No.1 seeks permission to withdraw this IA as
not pressed with liberty to file appropriate proceeding before the
executing Court in the execution proceedings of the appellants of
aforesaid decree of COS No.8-A/03 to resist such decree with further
prayer to direct the executing Court to entertain and decide his
application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC on merits and till this
extent the interim stay granted by this court earlier be relaxed.
       On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments the
appellants' counsel submits that the appellants have already taken
over the possession of the decreed property and at present at their
instance no execution proceeding is pending. However he submits
that he did not have any objection in dismissing the interlocutory
injunction application of the respondent No.1 as withdrawn but he
objected the prayer of such respondent for extending the liberty to
file appropriate proceeding/ application under Order 21 Rule 97 of
CPC.
       As per spirit of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act no party can
be stopped to approach the appropriate forum under the existing law
for redressal of his dispute, if law permits such party to file such
proceedings. In such premises, I am of the view that if the remedy
is available to the respondent No.1 under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC
to demonstrate his case before the appropriate forum of execution
Court then this Court can not refuse to extend such liberty.
       In the aforesaid premises, by allowing the prayer of the
appellants' counsel, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
matter and averments stated in the IA No.1452/12, such IA is hereby
dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed by extending a liberty to the
respondent No.1 to approach the execution Court in the execution
proceeding of the appellants of the decree of COS No.8-A/2003,
with an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC on the grounds
permissible under the law and till this extent the interim order passed
earlier granting interim stay vide dated 25.11.2011 is hereby relaxed.
      It is further observed that on filing such application/
proceeding on behalf of the respondent No.1 the executing Court
shall be at liberty to consider the question of entertainability of the
same and subject to it's out come the same shall be considered on
merits.   In any case such Court shall decide the matter after
extending the opportunity of hearing to the both the parties, the
respondent No.1 as well as the appellants.
      Subject to aforesaid relaxation the earlier interim order dated
25.11.2011 is continued.
      C.C. as per rules.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.959/14.
24.9.2014.
      Shri K. K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      At the request of appellant's counsel the case is adjourned with
a direction to place under the same head after a week or in any case
in the month of October, 2014.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.3225/13.
24.9.2014.
      Shri K. K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Instead to argue the case today, the appellant's counsel seeks
for and is granted a period of one month for further preparation of
the matter.
      Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to
place under the same immediately after one month or in any case in
the list week of November, 2014.



                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1742/13.
24.9.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri G. S. Thakur, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In the absence of the appellant's counsel IA No.17043/14,
second repeat application for suspension of of his remaining jail
sentence and grant of bail is hereby dismissed for want of
prosecution.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.612/13..
24.9.2014.
      Smt. Sonali Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri G. S. Thakur, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      This being admitted appeal is listed today for consideration of
I. A. No.9047/14, appellant's second repeat application for
suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as his
earlier application in this regard was dismissed for want of
prosecution vide order dated 16.4.2014.
      The appellant's counsel submits that contradictions and
omissions come in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses have
not been appreciated property by the trial Court and this appellant
has wrongly been convicted and sentenced with the co-accused
under wrong premises. In continuation she said that in comparison
of co-accused Bharat Vishwakarma, there is a weeks case against the
present appellant, as such he was not caught hold on the spot soon
after happening the incident.     In continuation she said that co-
accused Bharat Vishwakarma against whom some more serious
allegations were alleged by the prosecution has been directed to be
released on bail after suspending his remaining jail sentence vide
order dated 21.3.2014 in Cr. A. No.743/13 and in such premises she
prayed for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to
this appellant on merits as well as on the ground of parity.
      On the other hand learned P. L. has opposed the aforesaid
prayer saying that looking to the nature of the offence and manner in
which it was committed by the appellant with co-accused, he does
not deserve for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of
 bail. In continuation he said that co-accused Bharat Vishwakarma
was caught hold on the spot while this appellant has fled away from
the spot, so he was arrested at later stage during investigation, in
such premises he prayed for dismissal of this IA.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments the arguments
advanced, taking into consideration that in comparison of present
appellant there are more serious allegations have been alleged
against co-accused Bharat Vishwakarma, as he gave a blow of rod on
the persons of the victim Ramgopal and on consideration he has
been directed to be released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this
court, as stated above, there is no option with the Court accept to
extend the benefit of bail to the present appellant on the ground of
parity, hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
matter, I. A. is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the
fine amount, his remaining jail sentence is hereby suspended.
      It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court appellant Jalil @ Chunnu be released on bail with further
direction to appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on
19.12.2014 and on all subsequent dates which are given by the
office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                               (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                     Judge
k
                           Conc No.1214/14.
24.9.2014.
       Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Issue notice against admission of this petition to the
respondent No.1. The same be made returnable within six weeks.
    Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be taken
within five working days, failing which this petition shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                             W. P. No.24113/03.
25.9.2014.
       Shri Parth Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner
       Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
       It being an admitted petition vide order dated 16.7.1999 by the
then   Administrative       Tribunal,   Bhopal   is   listed   today   for
consideration of IA No.12031/14, petitioner's application for early
hearing of this petition.
       I am apprised by the petitioner's counsel that on earlier
occasion also the case was directed to be listed for final hearing vide
order dated 21.6.2013.
       Having perused the IA for the reasons stated in it, so also
keeping in view the spirit of order dated 21.6.2013, IA is allowed
and office is directed to list this matter for final hearing before winter
vacation of 2014.


                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                          W. P. No.8342/06 (s)
25.9.2014.
      Shri R. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      It being an admitted petition vide order dated 3.7.2006 is listed
today for consideration of IA No.12123/14, petitioner's application
for early hearing of this petition on merits but the petitioner's counsel
instead to argue the matter on such IA made his limited prayer to
dispose of this petition with a direction to the authorities of
respondent No.3 to consider and decide his pending representations
(Ann. P.9, P.11 and P.13) on some early date within some time
bound schedule.
      State counsel did not have any objection in disposing of the
petition on the aforesaid limited prayer of the petitioner's counsel.
      In view of the aforesaid limited prayer of the petitioner's
counsel so also the consent of the State counsel, this petition is
hereby disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the
respondent No.3 to consider and decide the pending representations
of the petitioner (Ann. P.9, P.11 and P.13) within sixty days from the
date of filing the certified copy of this order along with the copy of
petition and annexures keeping in view concerning Rules,
Regulations and Policies, promulgated in this regard by speaking
order under intimation to the petitioner.
      The petitioner is directed to submit aforesaid papers in the
office of the respondent No.3 within fifteen days from today.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                        W. P. No.14309/2009.
25.9.2014.
      None for the petitioner
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      In the absence of the petitioner's counsel IA No.12017/14, an
application for early hearing of this petition is hereby dismissed for
want of prosecution.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           W. P. No.7370/2007.
25.9.2014.
        Shri C. A. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        Shri Mahendra Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
        The presence of respondent No.2 being authority of the passing
the impugned order, is not required, hence the service of notice against
such respondent is hereby dispensed with, if the same is not served.
        This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.3882/2011,
an application of the respondent No.1 for vacating the ex-parte stay
passed on 4.7.2007.
        The petitioner's counsel seeks short adjournment to make his
submission on the aforesaid IA but in the available circumstances that
the petitioner is enjoying the ex-parte stay since 4.7.2007, I am not
inclined to adjourn the matter, consequently, the petitioner's counsel is
directed to assist the Court today to consider the aforesaid application.
        Counsel of the respondent No.1 is directed to make his
submission on the aforesaid IA.
        The counsel of the respondent No.1 after taking me through
through the averments of IA by referring the copy of the order passed
in identical petitions annexed with the aforesaid IA, argued that various
petitions filed against the identical dispute and circumstances have been
considered and dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 12.11.2009 in W. P. No.2952/09 (s), which was decided
consolidated manner with some other writ petitions No.2948/2007,
2952/07, 2953/07 and 2955/07, and prayed that in the light of such
order the ex-party order granting stay vide dated 4.7.2007 against the
impugned order (Ann. P.5) deserves to be vacated.
       On the other hand inspite direction of the Court the petitioner's
counsel again prayed for adjournment but in view of aforesaid earlier
order dated 12.11.2009 passed in W. P. No.2952/07 along with other
connected petitions, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter. In such
premises, again the petitioner's counsel is directed to make his
submission on the aforesaid IA, on which he said that in any case this
case be adjourned for a day, so may take appropriate instruction from
the petitioner but I am not inclined to adjourn the case, as stated above.
Hence, it is held that inspite various direction of the Court the
petitioner's counsel is not assisting the Court. In such premises, there is
no option with the Court except to decide the application in view of the
arguments advanced by the counsel of respondent No.1, I have
carefully gone through the IA as well as the aforesaid order dated
12.11.2009 in W. P. No.2952/07. After perusing the same I have found
that present petition is also pending for adjudicating on the identical
dispute, which has already been decided in the aforesaid cited order by
the Division Bench. So, in such premises, the interim order passed on
4.7.2007, could not be continued further. Consequently, by allowing
such IA, the interim order dated 4.7.2007 staying the operation of the
impugned order dated 30.3.2007 (Ann. P.5), passed by the Labour
Court in case No.27/03 I. D. Act, is hereby vacated.
      It being an admitted petition, office is directed to list the same
for final hearing in due course.

                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                             M. A. No.5307/10.
25.9.2014.
      Shri Komal Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Respondent No.1 to 3 are still unserved.
      None for respondent No.4 and 5 although served.
      This case is listed today for consideration of various IAs
including the IA No.17744/11, an application for early hearing of
this appeal on merits.
      It is apparent from the record that this petition is yet to be
heard on the question of admission after adjudication of an
application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act
for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, unless the
appeal is admitted for final hearing this IA could not be considered
and adjudicated, consequently the same is hereby dismissed by
extending a liberty to the appellant to revive the prayer after
admission of this appeal.
      On asking the appellant's counsel that on behalf of the
appellant three different applications IA No.14744/10 and 3061/11
and IA No.5275/11,       have been filed for grant of stay, which
application he wants to press, on which he seeks permission to
withdraw IA No.3061/11 and IA No.5275/11 with liberty to press
earlier application IA No.14744/10.
      Considering such prayer IA No.3061/11 and IA No.5275/11
are hereby dismissed with liberty to press earlier application IA
No.14744/10.
      It is apparent from the office note that notices of IA
No.14745/11, appellant's application under Section 5 of Limitation
 Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and IA No.14744/10,
for grant of stay have not been served on the respondent No.1 to 3.
Hence, it is directed that on payment of P. F. along with requisites of
registered post within seven days notice of aforesaid IAs returnable
by fixing a date with two months, be issued to the unserved
respondent No.1 to 3, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed
automatically without further reference to the Bench.
      Meanwhile the record of the trial Court be requisitioned.
      Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid
notices.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           W. P. No.10290/14.
26.9.2014.
      Shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Mohd. Amzad, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Counsel of respondent No.1 seeks a period of one month to
file the return in the matter.
      As last indulgence considering his prayer such respondent is
extended a period of one month to file the return, failing which his
right to file return shall stand closed automatically without further
reference to the Bench.
      So far the return of other respondents are concerned, the same
have been filed.
      Let this matter be placed along with all connected petition,
which are listed today under the same head immediately after one
month or in any case in the month of November, 2014.
      The interim order passed earlier is continued till next hearing.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                            W. P. No.1524/02.
26.9.2014.
      Shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Mohd. Amzad, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Counsel of respondent No.1 seeks a period of one month to
file the return in the matter.
      As last indulgence considering his prayer such respondent is
extended a period of one month to file the return, failing which his
right to file return shall stand closed automatically without further
reference to the Bench.
      So far the return of other respondents are concerned, the same
have been filed.
      Let this matter be placed along with all connected petition,
which are listed today under the same head immediately after one
month or in any case in the month of November, 2014.
      The interim order passed earlier is continued till next hearing.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          W. P. No.1186/09.
26.9.2014.
      None for the petitioner.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head along with W. P.
No.1524/02, as directed in such petition.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          W. P. No.6264/02.
26.9.2014.
      None for the petitioner.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head along with W. P.
No.1524/02, as directed in such petition.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         W. P. No.5642/2014.
26.9.2014.
      Shri Bhuvnesh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Having heard on IA No.7621/14, petitioner's application for
amendment in the writ petition, for the reasons stated in it, the same
is allowed. The petitioner's counsel is directed to carry out necessary
correction in the petition within seven days.
      Subject to such correction, office is directed to proceed
further.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          W. P. No.7646/12
26.9.2014.
      None for either of the parties, although represented.
      In the absence of the petitioner's counsel, IA No.8805/14,
petitioner's application for modification of some earlier order is
hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
      It being admitted petition, office is directed to list for final
hearing in due course.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         M. A. No.2145/12
26.9.2014.
     None for either of the parties. Adjourned.


                                    (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                          Judge
k
                          W. P. No.5965/09.
26.9.2014.
      Shri K. C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the month of
January, 2015.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                            F. A. No.730/07.
26.9.2014.
      None for the appellant as well as the served respondents.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      As per office note the service report of notice issued to the
proposed legal representatives of respondent No.3 and 4 in
compliance of earlier direction are still awaited.
      Let the same be requisitioned within one month and case be
listed immediately thereafter under the same head along with such
report.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                              S. A. No.385/95.
26.9.2014.
      Shri K. S. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Smt. Sweta Gujpta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (d).
      None for respondent No.1 (e), 2(b), and 2(c), although served.
      Respondent No.1 (a) to 1 (c), 1(f) to 1(j) and 2 (d) are still
unserved.
      IA No.3093/13, an application of respondent No.1 (d) under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, shall be considered and adjudicated at the
time of final hearing of this appeal, till then hearing on this IA is hereby
deferred.
      Also heard on Ia No.8737/14, appellant's application for
appropriate direction to the respondent No.1(c), 1 (d) and 1(h) to supply
the address of other legal representatives of such respondents enable
him to submit their process with correct address to serve the notice of
appeal. It is noted that respondent No.1 (h) has not been served till
today and no one is present on behalf of the respondent 1 (c) so in the
available circumstances, such IA is allowed in part and counsel of
respondent No. 1(d) is directed to supply the correct address of
unserved legal representatives of respondent No.1 to the counsel of the
appellant within fifteen days and subject to supply such address the
appellant is directed to furnish fresh P. F. with requisites of registered
post within further ten days and office is directed to issue notice of
admission of this appeal as well as concerning IA, on which their
names have been substituted on record, to the unserved legal
representatives of unserved respondent No.1.
      Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid
notices.
                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.1653/14.
26.9.2014.
      Shri J. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Umesh Pandey, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      In the course of the arguments on IA No.16872/14, an
application filed on behalf of the appellant No.1 for suspension of
his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail in response of some
query of the Court       the appellants' counsel seeks permission to
withdraw this IA as not pressed at this stage with liberty to revive the
prayer at subsequent stage after facing some period out of the
awarded jail sentence.
      Keeping in view the available circumstances of the matter,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, IA is
dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed at this stage with liberty to
revive the prayer at subsequent stage after facing some period out of
the awarded jail sentence.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                      (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                  Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.1387/14.
26.9.2014.
      Shri Hemendra Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant.
      Shri Umesh Pandey, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submits that inspite his intimation in compliance
of the order dated 19.9.2014, he is not under the receipt of
verification report and seeks short adjournment to call and place the
same on record.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 6.10.2014.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2698/11.
26.9.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.16302/14,
appellant's repeat application for suspension of his remaining jail
sentence and grant of bail.
      Earlier this matter was listed on 5.9.2014 for consideration of
such IA but on taking up the matter no one was present to prosecute
the same and same position is today, on one is present on behalf of
the appellant. In such premises IA is hereby dismissed for want of
prosecution.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1088/11.
26.9.2014.
      Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Having heard on IA No.17255/13, appellant's application for
early hearing of this appeal on merits, in view of pendency of
various old appeals in present of comparison of present appeal, I am
not inclined to hearing this appeal out of its turn, consequently, IA is
hereby dismissed.
      I am apprised by the appellant's counsel that repeat application
for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants IA
No.5779/14 is also pending for adjudication.
       Office is directed to list this matter for consideration of such
IA in the week commencing 6.10.2014 before appropriate Bench.



                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.11389/14.
26.9.2014.
      Shri U. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      At the request of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned
with a direction to place under the same head in the week
commencing 6.10.2014.
      Applicant's counsel is directed to file the remaining copy of
proceedings drawn up by the trial Court enabling the Court to
consider the status of the case.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                      M. Cr. C. No.14805/14.
26.9.2014.
      Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned G. A. submits that inspite his intimation he is not
under the receipt of case diary.
      Let it be placed under the same head in the week commencing
6.10.2014. Meanwhile case diary be called positively and produced
on the next date of hearing.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          W. P. No.11928/14.
1.10.2014 .
        Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
        Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned PL for the respondent no.1 to 3.
        Issue notice against admission of this petition as well as for
final disposal of this petition to the respondent No.4. The same be
made returnable by fixing a date in the week commencing
10.11.2014.
     Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be taken
within seven working days, failing which this petition shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
K.
                          Cr. A. No.1684/2011.
7.10.2014.
        Shri R. S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant No.1.
        Shri Ram Prakash Shivhare, learned counsel for appellant
No.2.
        Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
        In response of show cause notice issued in compliance of
order dated 20.8.2014 to the surety of Ramlal Gond appellant No.2
namely Banswaroop is present in person.
        The counsel of appellant No.2 is also appeared on behalf of
aforesaid surety Banswaroop.
        Surety of appellant No.2 and his counsel seeks for and is
granted a period of one month to produce the appellant No.2 before
the Court and to file the reply of aforesaid show cause notice.
        Non-bailable warrant issued against appellant No.2 and 5
namely Ramlal Gond and Dashmat Singh have not been received
back served or unserved. In such premises, office is directed to
secure their presence by issuing fresh non-bailable warrant against
them. The same be made returnable by fixing a date in the month of
December, 2014.
        Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid
non-bailable warrant.
        Meanwhile surety may file the reply of show cause notice.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2417/10.
7.10.2014.
      Shri Manish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today for appearance of appellant No.2
Sevphal @ Ramlakhan but his counsel submits that he being
detained in District Jail, Satna in connection of some other case is
not in a position to come and appear before this court.
      The bailable warrant issued in compliance of order dated
9.9.2014 has not been received back either served or unserved and
no report has been placed on the record by the office in this regard.
      In view of aforesaid submission of the counsel office is
directed to secure the presence of appellant no.2 before this Court
through production warrant from the aforesaid jail. Same be made
returnable by fixing a date in the month of December, 2014.
      Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid
production warrant.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          Cr. R. No.141/2010.
7.10.2014.
      Shri Sudhir Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Under execution of bailable warrant issued in compliance of
order dated 26.8.2014, applicant Chhinga @ Arjun is present in
person, identified by his counsel.
      After marking his presence on record, he is directed to appear
before the Registry of this court firstly on 16.12.2014 and on such
other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of this
Revision.
      Office is directed to take appropriate step to list this revision
in the Mega Lok Adalat, if the same is scheduled in near future.

                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.1812/2008.
7.10.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      In compliance of the order dated 21.8.2014, office has placed
this matter along with requisite report of non-bailable warrant issued
against the appellant Devakar Prasad.       According to such report
dated 28.4.2013 received from P. S. Mauganj, inspite making effort
the appellant Divakar could not be traced out at the address
mentioned in the warrant. As per further averments he is absconded
from the village since last two years.     In such premises, office is
directed to secure the presence of appellant before this Court by
issuing non-bailable warrant against him. Same be made returnable
by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015.
      In the available circumstances, the bail bonds of the appellant
is hereby forfeited and earlier order suspending his remaining jail
sentence and grant of bail is hereby recalled. Pursuant to it, office is
directed to send the papers of the bail bond of the appellant to the
trial Court with a direction to initiate appropriate proceeding against
the appellant as well as his surety to recover the sum of personal
bond from the property of the appellant and the sum of the surety
bond from the property of surety. Such Court is further directed to
submit the progress report of such recovery on interval of every
three months.
      Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid
non-bailable warrant.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.1786/08.
7.10.2014.
        None for appellant No.1.
        Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for the        appellant
No.2.
        Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
        This case is listed along with Cr. A. no.1812/2008. After
passing the order in such other appeal, office is directed to place this
matter along with such other Cr. A. no.1812/2008, as directed in
such appeal.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                        Cr. R. No.1013/2006.
7.10.2014.
      Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.
      Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Counsel of the appellant again seeks for and is granted short
adjournment to keep present applicant No.1 Chaturbhuj, in
compliance of the order dated 7.7.2014.
      Let this matter be listed on 10.11.2014 for appearance of
applicant No.1.
      IA No.7069/14, shall be considered in presence of applicant
No.1 on such date.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. R. No.721/2005.
7.10.2014.
      Shri Gopi Bagri, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Under execution of non-bailable warrant the applicant Umed
Singh is produced by the Police Escort from the District Jail, Raisen.
      After marking his presence on record he is directed to send
back to the aforesaid jail with the same Police Escort with a further
direction to such Jail Authority not to send the appellant to this Court
in future, unless the order of this Court.
      Let this matter be listed for final hearing in due course.

                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.870/97.
7.10.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      In the light of the observation made in the order dated
23.6.2014 the requisite report dated 25.9.2014 is received from the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Jabalpur contending that lastly the
appellant Damu @ Manoj @ Ram S/o Janki was released on bail in
compliance of the order dated 28.1.2010. It is further stated that he
is not detained in jail. In such premises, office is directed to secure
the presence of appellant before this Court by issuing non-bailable
warrant against him. Same be made returnable by fixing a date in the
month of January, 2015.
      In the available circumstances, the bail bonds of the appellant
is hereby forfeited and earlier order suspending his remaining jail
sentence and grant of bail is hereby recalled. Pursuant to it, office is
directed to send the papers of the bail bond of the appellant to the
Court of CJM Jabalpur with a direction to initiate appropriate
proceeding against the appellant as well as his surety to recover the
sum of personal bond from the property of the appellant and the sum
of the surety bond from the property of surety. Such Court is further
directed to submit the progress report of such recovery on interval of
every three months.
      Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid
non-bailable warrant.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15254 of 2014
7.10.2014.
         Shri Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants.
         Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned G. A. submits that he is under the receipt of case
diary.
         Heard.
         This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as they are under
apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.149/14,
registered at Police Station Jaisinagar, for the offence punishable
under Section 304, 498-A of IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
         In the course of the arguments in view of averments of FIR in
which the name of the present applicants have also been stated with
particulars of their alleged act, on making certain query, on which
instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this
petition.
         Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed.
                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.15167/14.
7.10.2014.
       Shri Raman Patel with Shri A. K. Paroha, learned counsel for the
applicants.
       Shri C. K. Mishra, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
       Learned G. A. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.
       Heard.
       This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant, as they are under apprehension of their
arrest in connection with Crime No.398/14, registered at Police Station
Belbag Distt. Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148,
294, 506, 452 and 323 of IPC.
       Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments advanced,
after perusing the case diary taking into consideration that at the instance
of present applicants' party a counter case bearing Crime No.399/14
against the complainant party of the case for the offence punishable under
Section 147, 148, 294, 506 and 323 of IPC was registered, which is also
under investigation and the circumstance that except Section 452 of IPC
all other offences are baiable, this case appears to be a fit case for
extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants, thus petition is
allowed.
       It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants or any of
them in connection of above mentioned crime on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) along one surety of
like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting/ investigating officer by
each of the applicant, they/ he shall be released on bail. Such release of
the applicants shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under
Section 438 (2) of Cr. P. C.
       C. C. as per rules.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                 Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15115/14.
7.10.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      Although with the assistance of case diary and the
Government Advocate this petition could be considered and
adjudicated on merits but in the absence of the applicant's counsel
the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15077/14.
7.10.2014.
      Shri Rahul Rai, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      I am apprised by the State counsel that applications filed on
behalf of the co-accused of the same crime under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. were considered and adjudicated by the coordinate Bench of
this Court and such Bench is still available at Jabalpur. As per
newly implemented roster system subsequent application either of
Section 438 or 439 of Cr. P. C. of co-accused of same crime could be
considered and adjudicated by which the earlier application of co-
accused has been considered and adjudicated.
      In view of aforesaid submission, office is directed to examine
the position keeping in view the newly implemented roster system
and list the case before appropriate Bench in the next week.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.14509 of 2014
7.10.2014.
         Shri Sumit Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case
diary.
         Heard.
         This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under
apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.520/14,
registered at Police Station Gohalpur, Jabalpur, for the offence
punishable under Section 294, 323, 307, 506/34 of IPC.
         Initially the case was argued at length but in view of the
averments of FIR as well as the interrogatory statements of the
victim in which the name of the present application has also been
stated, as one of the culprit, who opened the fire on him, on making
certain query, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission
to withdraw this petition.
         Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed.
                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                            Cr. R. No.473/13.
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        In the absence of the counsel in the interest of justice, case is
adjourned with a diction to place under the same head in the month
of November, 2014.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                            Cr. R. No.753/13.
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        In the absence of the counsel in the interest of justice, the case
is adjourned with a diction to place under the same head in the
month of November, 2014.
        Let the name of the Shri Jairaj Singh Bais be also reflected in
the cause list on the aforesaid single date. Such direction has been
given to inform such counsel to make his submission on IA
No.2696/2014.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                            Cr. R. No.2167/13.
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        In the absence of the counsel in the interest of justice, the case
is adjourned with a diction to place in the month of November, 2014
for consideration of IA No.18608/14, an application of respondent
No.2 for permission to change the counsel.
        Let the name of the Shri Basant Pandey be also reflected in the
cause list on the aforesaid single date to make his submission on the
aforesaid IA.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.7185/14.
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        In the absence of the counsel in the interest of justice, the case
is adjourned with a diction to place under the same head in the week
commencing 27.10.2014.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                            Cr. A No.1896/12.
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        In the absence of the counsel in the interest of justice, the case
is adjourned with a diction to place under the same head on
18.11.2014.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
Lateron at 12.15 Noon.
        Shri Chandraveer Singh H. C. No.646 posted at
Police Lines, Damoh has produced the appellant No.
Prahlad Singh from the District Jail, Damoh.
        After marking his presence on record he is directed
to send back to the aforesaid jail with the same Police
Escort with a further direction to such Jail Authority not
to send the appellant to this Court in future, unless the
order of this Court.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                            Cr. A. No.2788/14.
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        Having perused the impugned judgment, this appeal appears to
arguable, hence the same is hereby admitted for final hearing.
        Let the notice of this admission be issued to the Advocate
General within seven days.
        Record of the trial Court be also requisitioned within two
months and case be listed for final hearing in due course.


                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.14996-14
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        Let the default be made good within seven days, failing which
this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further
reference to the Bench.
        Subject to aforesaid compliance, if the case is matured for
admission then it be listed in the week commencing 27.10.2014.


                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.15314-14
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        In the absence of the counsel in the interest of justice, the case
is adjourned with a diction to place under the same head in the week
commencing 27.10.2014.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.860/13.
8.10.2014.
        None for the applicant.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        Let the order dated 1.2.2013 be complied with within fifteen
days or to file appropriate application in this regard, failing with this
petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference
to the Bench.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.2647-13
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        Let the default be made good within fifteen days, failing
which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without
further reference to the Bench.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.7334-14
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        In the absence of the counsel in the interest of justice, the case
is adjourned with a diction to place under the same head in the
month of November, 2014.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.7334-13
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        Let the default be made good within fifteen days, failing
which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without
further reference to the Bench.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                              M. Cr. C. No.
8.10.2014.
        None for either of the parties.
        In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association,
Jabalpur dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the
work.
        Having perused IA No.18322/14, petitioner's application for
amendment in the array of writ petition, for the reasons stated in it,
the same is allowed. The petitioner's counsel is directed to carry out
necessary correction in the petition within ten working days.
        Subject to such correction, office is directed to proceed
further.

                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                Judge
k
                           M. Cr. C. No.12331/14.
8.10.2014.
       None for the applicant as well as non-applicant No.1.
       In view of resolution of M. P. High court Bar Association, Jabalpur
dated 7.10.2014, the Advocates are abstained from the work.
       This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question of
maintainability as M. Cr. C. under Section 378 (4) of Cr. P. C.
       As per office note against the impugned judgment dated
13.12.2013 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai in S. t.
No.214/13, extending the acquittal to the respondent No.2 and 3 from the
charge of Section 435/34 of IPC, the remedy of regular appeal under the
proviso of Section 372 of Cr. P. C. is available. In such premises, this
petition filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr. P. C. is not entertainable.
       Having perused the aforesaid provision of Section 372 as well as of
Section 378 (4) of Cr. P. C. the office objection is sustained and it is held
this   this petition filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr. P. C. is not
entertainable in view of the remedy of regular appeal provided under the
proviso of Section 372 of Cr. P. C. However, in the absence of the counsel
instead to dismiss this petition on technical ground, counsel of the
applicant is extended a liberty to file appropriate application to convert
this petition from Section 378 (4) of Cr. P. C. into Criminal Appeal
provided under the proviso of Section 372 of Cr. P. C. within fifteen days,
failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without
further reference to the Bench and in that circumstances, applicant shall be
at liberty to file regular appeal provided under the proviso of Section 372
of Cr. P. C.
                                           (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                  Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.14931/2014.
9.10.2014.
      Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri A.K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under
Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail, as he is in custody since
22.8.2014 in connection of Crime No.432/14, registered at P. S.
Omti, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467,
468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC.
      In the course of the arguments in response of some query of
the Court the applicant's counsel instead to argue further seeks
permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer
after filing the charge sheet.
      Considering aforesaid prayer, without expressing any opinion
on merits of the matter this petition is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.15322-2014.
9.10.2014.
       Shri V. K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri A.K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
       On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under Section
438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension
of his arrest in connection of Crime No.325/14, registered at P. S. Madan
Mahal, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC.
       In the course of the arguments on asking the applicant's counsel
that in the lack of custodial interrogation, because according to the case
of prosecution the applicant has committed the offence of breach of trust
of huge amount of lacks, how the matter is investigated and huge amount
is recovered on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to
withdraw this petition with liberty to surrender the applicant before the
investigation officer with further prayer for appropriate direction that after
arresting the applicant and producing the before the court, if he is sent to
judicial custody then on filing the application for grant of bail then such
Court may consider and adjudicate such application on the same day.
       In the available circumstances by allowing the prayer of the
applicant's counsel, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not
pressed with liberty to surrender the applicant before the investigation
officer within one month and it is directed that on producing the applicant
before the court and sending him in judicial custody if any application is
filed on his behalf for grant of bail then same shall be considered and
decided on the same day in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the law.
       C. C. as per rules.
                                          (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                 Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.14916/2014.
9.10.2014.
      Shri Alok Tapikar, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri A.K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under
Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail, as he is in custody since
22.8.2014 in connection of Crime No.432/14, registered at P. S.
Omti, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467,
468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC.
      In the course of the arguments in response of some query of
the Court the applicant's counsel instead to argue further seeks
permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer
after filing the charge sheet.
      Considering aforesaid prayer, without expressing any opinion
on merits of the matter this petition is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                      M. Cr. C. No.13611/2014.
10.10.2014.
       Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
       On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under
Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail, as he is in custody since
3.3.2014 in connection of Crime No.24/14, registered at P. S.Sendar,
District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Section 307,
394/34, 120-B, 402, 397, 398, 411, 412 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms
Act.
       In the course of the arguments in response of some query of
the Court based on memorandum of the present applicant recorded
under Section 27 of Evidence Act as well as the seizure memo by
which at his instance the alleged stolen articles of the incident has
been seized, on which instead to argue further the applicant's counsel
seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the
prayer after examining the witnesses of the aforesaid memorandum
and seizure memo.
       Considering aforesaid prayer this petition is hereby dismissed
as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15328-2014.
9.10.2014.
      Shri Pushpendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri A.K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under
Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under
apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.24/07,
registered at P. S. Bahri District Sidhi for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A, 304-B, 341/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
      In the course of the arguments in response of some query of
the Court the applicant's counsel instead to argue further seeks
permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to surrender the
applicant before the investigation officer.
      Considering aforesaid prayer, without expressing any opinion
on merits of the matter this petition is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.15454/14.
9.10.2014.
      Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri A.K. Chourasiya, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under Section
438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is          under
apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.200/14, registered
at P. S. Nohta, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Section
323, 294, 506-II of IPC & Section 3 (1) (iv), 3 (2) (v-a) of S. C. S. T.
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, (In short "the Act").
      The applicant's counsel after taking me through the petition as
well as rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that before
happening the alleged incident at the request of the wife of the
applicant the complainant Gokul Ahirwar brought her on his
motorcycle to the village where the applicant saw his wife with the
applicant, on which some hot talk had taken place between them and
applicant asking the complainant why he has with with his wife and
due to that alleged incident was happened.        In such premises, the
applicant has not committed the alleged act with intention to humiliate
the complainant on account of his caste. In additional to it, he also
argued that except offence of the S. C. S. T. Act all other offences are
bailable under the law and prayed for grant of bail.
      On the other hand the State counsel with the assistance of the
case diary argued that as per available evidence it is apparent that
complainant belonging to a caste covered under the Act was abused
with filthy language by the applicant in public view with intention to
humiliate him on account of his caste, so at this stage in view of
provision of Section 18 of the Act barring to extend the benefit of
 anticipatory bail to the offender of the Act, the applicant does not
deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail and prayed for
dismissal of this petition.
       Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments
advanced, I have carefully gone through the available record, in the
available as reflected from the case diary this case appears to a fit case
for   extending    the   benefit    of   anticipatory   bail   because   the
applicant/accused had seen his wife with the complainant at the out side
of the village and on account of that the alleged quarrel had taken place
between them but taking into consideration that on abusing the
applicant in public place he feels himself to be humiliated by the
applicant, hence in view of mandatory provision of Section 18 of the
Act the benefit of anticipatory bail could not be extended to the
applicant.    Consequently, on account of such technical mandatory
provision, this petition is hereby dismissed. However, if the applicant
is surrendered himself before the Special Court Damoh on any date
within one month and file appropriate application for grant of regular
bail under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. then such Court is directed that on
surrendering the applicant in compliance of aforesaid direction then
after taking him in custody and calling the case diary from the
concerning police station such application be decided on the same day
in accordance with the procedure keeping in view the observation made
by this court in the earlier part of this order.
       The petition is dismissed but aforesaid observation, liberty and
directions.
       C. C. as per rules.
                                           (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                  Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15114/14.
9.10.2014.
      Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P. L. counsel submit that he is under the receipt of
case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 6.8.2014 in
connection with Crime No.861/14, registered at Police Station
Kotwali, Seoni for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34,
304 of IPC Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
      Applicant's counsel after taking me through the petition as
well as the papers placed on record, argued that the deceased was
never subjected to cruelty in her life time by this appellant, as such
he has been falsely implicated by fabricating the false story. In
continuation he said that besides the merits, the applicant being a
person of 61 years is facing some physical problem and prayed for
grant of bail by allowing this petition.
      On the other hand with the assistance of the case diary
responding the aforesaid arguments learned P. L. argued that
applicant being father-in-law of the deceased was used to commit
cruel activities with her in her life time, for which sufficient evidence
is available in the case diary. In continuation he said that in view of
the provision of presumption also the applicant does not deserve for
grant of bail and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
       Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have
carefully gone through the papers placed on record as well as the
case diary. On perusing the same, I have found distinguishable case
against the applicant in comparison of co-accused/ the husband of
the deceased because in the available circumstance the husband is
more responsible for the alleged incident, thus in such premises so
also keeping in view the arguments advanced on account of the age
of the applicant i. e. 61      years and he is facing some physical
problems of old age, without expressing any opinion on merits of
the matter, this petition is allowed.
      It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Nanakram shall be released
on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of hearing
before the trial court.     His single non-appearance before the trial
court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.

                                              (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                    Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15164/14.
9.10.2014.
      Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P. L. counsel submit that he is under the receipt of
case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 30.7.2014 in
connection with Crime No.302/14, registered at Police Station
Madhav Nagar, Katni for the offence punishable under Section 307,
302 and 109 of IPC.
      The applicant's counsel submits that charge sheet has been
filed in the matter and after taking me through the papers placed on
record argued that the present applicant has been falsely implicated
in the matter stating that he has instigated the main accused the
husband of the deceased to commit alleged act and pursuant to it co-
accused Ramesh after pouring the kerosene on the deceased set fire
on her.      In continuation by referring dying declarations of the
deceased recorded by the doctor on 3.6.2014 and by the Naib
Tahsildar/ Executive Magistrate on 4.6.2014 he said that according
to these also the alleged act of pouring the kerosene and setting fire
on the deceased was carried out by the co-accused Ramesh while the
present applicant has only instigated to him. In continuation he said
that in the lack of any evidence connecting the present application
with the alleged offence he should not be detained by way of pre trial
detention.     Besides the merits, the prayer for grant of bail is also
made on the ground of the age of the present applicant i. e. more
than 60 years.
       Aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned P. L. with the
assistance of the case diary saying that looking to the nature of
evidence according to which the present applicant instigated Ramesh
to commit such act, he does not deserve for grant of bail and prayed
for dismissal of this petition.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the case diary taking into consideration the nature of
evidence collected by the investigating agency and filed with the
charge sheet, according to which actual act was committed by the
co-accused Ramesh, who after pouring the kerosene on the deceased
set fire on her and not by the present applicant along with his age
i. e. more than 60 years, without expressing any opinion on merits
of the matter, this petition is allowed.
      It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Girdharilal Yadav shall be
released on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of
hearing before the trial court. His single non-appearance before the
trial court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                               (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                     Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.13662-14.
10.10.2014.
       Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri A. K. Chourasiya, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2.
       Issue notice against admission of this petition to the
respondent No.1. The same be made returnable within one month.
    Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be taken
within seven days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed
automatically without further reference to the Bench.
       Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid
notice.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                      M. Cr. C. No.13611/2014.
10.10.2014.
      Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under
Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail, as he is in custody since
3.3.2014 in connection of Crime No.24/14, registered at P. S.
Sendari, District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Section
307, 394/34, 120-B, 402, 397, 398, 411, 412 of IPC and 25/27 of
Arms Act.
      In the course of the arguments in response of some query of
the Court based on memorandum of the present applicant recorded
under Section 27 of Evidence Act as well as the seizure memo by
which at his instance the alleged stolen articles were seized, on
which instead to argue further the applicant's counsel seeks
permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer
after examining the witnesses of the aforesaid memorandum and
seizure memo in trial.
      Considering aforesaid prayer this petition is hereby dismissed
as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.13593/2014.
10.10.2014.
         Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
         State counsel submits that he is under the receipt of the case
diary.
         Heard.
         On behalf of the applicant this petition is preferred under
Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail, as they are in custody since
3.3.2014 in connection of Crime No.24/14, registered at P. S. Kesli,
District Sagar for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148,
149, 302 and 201 of IPC.
         In the course of the arguments in response of some query of
the Court based on interrogatory statements of the prosecution
witnesses instead to argue further the applicant's counsel seeks
permission to withdraw this petition at this stage with liberty to
revive the prayer at subsequent stage after recording deposition of
some prosecution witnesses.
         Considering aforesaid prayer this petition is hereby dismissed
as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.


                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                     M. Cr. C. No.15914/14.
13.10.2014.
     Shri Pradeep Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
     Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
     At the request of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned
with a direction to place under the same head in the week
commencing 10.11.2014.
     Case diary be produced on such date.


                                    (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                          Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15900/14.
13.10.2014.
      Shri L. N. Sakle, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as she is in custody since 31.5.2014 in
connection with Crime No.118/14,, registered at Police Station
Labkudh Nagar District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under
Section 302/34 of IPC.
      In the course of the arguments on making certain query based
on case diary as well as the charge sheet, on which instead to argue
further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this
petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on
availability of some additional grounds or change in the
circumstances.
      Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed with liberty aforesaid. However, considering the oral
prayer of the applicant's counsel that the applicant is a pregnant lady,
the Superintendent of District Jail, Chhatarpur is directed to provide
her the requisite treatment through Jail Hospital and if necessary
then from the appropriate Government or other Hospital.
      Let a copy of this Order be sent to Superintendent of District
Jail, Chhatarpur to comply the aforesaid direction.

                                              (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                    Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15839/14.
13.10.2014.
      Shri Pramod Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P. L. counsel submit that he is under the receipt of
case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 20.9.2014 in
connection with Crime No.202/14, registered at Police Station
Tejgarh District Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 34
(2) and 42 of Excise Act.
      The applicant's counsel after taking me though the petition and
the rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that the applicant
being Manager of some licensee liquor shop has been arrested in the
matter on the basis of memorandum of co-accused recorded under
Section 27 of Evidence Act, in which he stated that the alleged liquor
was purchased by him from the shop of the applicant while no liquor
was sold by the applicant to such co-accused or his companion. In
continuation he said that during investigation some registers of
liquor shop have also been seized, according to them also alleged
liquor was not sold to such accused by the applicant. He also said
that mere on the basis of memorandum of co-accused the applicant
could not be detained in jail as pre-trial punishment and prayed for
grant of bail.
      On the other hand State counsel submits that applicant being
master and main culprit of the impugned case as he had given the
 alleged liquor to the co-accused from whom the same was recovered,
is not entitled for grant of bail and prayed for dismissal of this
petition.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the case diary taking into consideration the nature of
evidence collected by the investigation agency against the present
applicant, so also the circumstance that no offending substance was
recovered from the applicant, without expressing any opinion on
merits of the matter, this petition is allowed.
      It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Sandip Singh         shall be
released on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of
hearing before the trial court. His single non-appearance before the
trial court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.

                                                  (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                        Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15899/14.
13.10.2014.
      Shri Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned P. L. counsel submit that he is under the receipt of
case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 20.9.2014 in
connection with Crime No.202/14, registered at Police Station
Tejgarh District Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 34
(2) and 42 of Excise Act.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the case diary taking into consideration the quantity of
seized substance i. e. sixteen quarter so also the nature of evidence
collected by the investigating agency with respect of the present
applicant, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter,
this petition is allowed.
      It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Mukesh Singh shall be
released on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of
hearing before the trial court. His single non-appearance before the
trial court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                               (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                     Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15895/14.
13.10.2014.
      Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned G. A. submits that inspite his intimation he is not
under the receipt of case diary.
      Let it be placed under the same head in the week commencing
27.10.2014. Meanwhile case diary be called positively and produced
before the Court on such date.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15894/14.
13.10.2014.
      Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 4.8.2014 in
connection with Crime No.268/14,, registered at Police Station
Bajariya District Bhopal, for the offence punishable under Section
363, 366 and 376 of IPC.
      In the course of the arguments in response of query of the
Court based on available circumstance of the case diary, on which
instead to argue further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to
withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent
after recording the deposition of prosecutrix in the trial.
      Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed with liberty aforesaid.
                                              (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                    Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2098/14.
13.10.2014.
      Shri Rajiv Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Let the record of the trial Court be requisitioned within one
month and case be listed immediately thereafter for consideration of
IA No.15297/14, appellant's application for suspension of his
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.14087/14.
14.10.2014.
      Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Mahesh
Acharya, learned counsel for the applicants.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1.
      Shri R. P. Kanojiya, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
      This petition is arising out of a private complaint filed by the
respondent No.2 against the applicants and other co-accused in
which the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 294,
323, 506/34, 457, 451 of IPC and 3(1) (iv) and 3(1)(x) of S. C. S. T.
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act have been taken.
      The counsel of respondent No.2/ complainant apprises me that
he has filed his objection but he has not served any notice because no
direction for issuing notice has been given by this Court and in order
to defend the matter the assisting counsel of the applicant be directed
to supply the copy of the petition and other papers.
      Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of the counsel of
respondent No.2, I have carefully gone through the available record
along with the petition and rejection order of the Special Court. I am
of the considered view that complaint being filed by the respondent
No.2, its copy must be available with his counsel, therefore, no
direction is required to supply the copy of the complaint to the
respondent No.2.
      On asking the counsel of respondent No.2 whether he is
having the copy of rejection order of the Special Court, on which he
submits that he has copy of such order but he has not been supplied
the copy of the petition.
       In the available circumstances, the assisting counsel is
direction to supply the copy of the petition to the counsel of
respondent No.2 during the course of the day and office is directed to
place this matter under the same head along with connected M. Cr.
C. No.14040/14 on 16.10.2014.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.14040/14.
14.10.2014.
      Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Mahesh
Acharya, learned counsel for the applicants.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1.
      Shri R. P. Kanojiya, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
      This petition is arising out of a private complaint filed by the
respondent No.2 against the applicants and other co-accused in
which the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section
3(1)(x) of S. C. S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act have been taken.
      The counsel of respondent No.2/ complainant apprises me that
he has filed his objection but he has not served any notice because no
direction for issuing notice has been given by this Court and in order
to defend the matter the assisting counsel of the applicant be directed
to supply the copy of the petition and other papers.
      Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of the counsel of
respondent No.2, I have carefully gone through the available record
along with the petition and rejection order of the Special Court. I am
of the considered view that complaint being filed by the respondent
No.2, its copy must be available with his counsel, therefore, no
direction is required to supply the copy of the complaint to the
respondent No.2.
      On asking the counsel of respondent No.2 whether he is
having the copy of rejection order of the Special Court, on which he
submits that he has copy of such order but he has not been supplied
the copy of the petition.
       In the available circumstances, the assisting counsel is
direction to supply the copy of the petition to the counsel of
respondent No.2 during the course of the day and office is directed to
place this matter under the same head along with connected M. Cr.
C. No.14087/14 on 16.10.2014.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.1750/14.
14.10.2014.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the applicant/ State.
      None for the respondents.
      Inspite execution of bailable warrant respondent No.1 Heeralal
is not present before this court while the service report of bailable
warrant issued against the respondent No.2 Bajju @ Bhajanlal
Dheemar is not received.
      In such premises, office is directed to secure the presence of
respondent No.1 Heera by issuing non-bailable warrant against him
while secure the presence of respondent No2 Bajju @ Bhajanlal
Dheemar by issuing fresh bailable warrant of Rs.20,000/- against
him. Such warrants be made returnable by fixing a date in the month
of December, 2014.      Meanwhile the service report of bailable
warrant issued against respondent No.2 be also requisitioned.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           Cr. R. No.265-14.
14.10.2014.
       Shri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
       Counsel of the applicant seeks short adjournment with a fixed
date to keep present the appellant before the Court.
       Let this matter be listed on 5.11.2014 for appearance of
appellant.
       It is observed that if the applicant is not appeared on such date
then his presence shall be secured by other mode provided under the
law.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.245/14.
14.10.2014.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the appellant/ State.
      None for the respondent.
      Service report of bailable warrant issued against the
respondent is still awaited.
      Let same be requisitioned through reminder within three
weeks and case be listed in the week commencing 17.11.2014 and if
the same is not received within the aforesaid period then the
presence of respondent be secured by issuing fresh bailable warrant
of Rs.20,000/- against him. Such warrant be made returnable by
fixing a date in the month of January, 2015.
      Case be listed accordingly.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           Cr. R. No.2148/11.
14.10.2014.
       Shri Nitin Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
       Counsel of the applicant seeks short adjournment with a fixed
date to keep present the appellant before the Court.
       Let this matter be listed on 5.11.2014 for appearance of
appellant.
       It is observed that if the applicant is not appeared on such date
then his presence shall be secured by other mode provided under the
law.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1366-2011.
14.10.2014.
      Shri Rajiv Unbhore, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      The service report of bailable warrant issued against the
appellant as well as the show cause notice issued to the surety of the
appellant are still awaited.
      Let same be requisitioned through reminder within three
weeks and case be listed in the week commencing 17.11.2014 and if
the same are not received within the aforesaid period then the
presence of appellant be secured by issuing non-bailable warrant
against him while the presence of surety of the appellant be secured
by issuing bailable      warrant of Rs.10,000/- against him. Such
warrants be made returnable by fixing a date in the month of
January, 2015.
      Case be listed accordingly.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           Cr. R. No.1306-11.
14.10.2014.
       Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         The service report of bailable warrant issued against the
applicant is still awaited.
       Let same be requisitioned through reminder within three
weeks.
       Apart the aforesaid Counsel of the applicant seeks short
adjournment with a fixed date to keep present the applicant before
the Court.
       Let this matter be listed on 25.11.2014 for appearance of
appellant.
       It is observed that if the applicant is not appeared on such date
then his presence shall be secured by other mode provided under the
law.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                        Cr. A. No.1194/2010.
14.10.2014.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the appellant/ State.
      None for the respondent.
      The presence of the respondent was secured through bailable
warrant of Rs.10,000/-. Inspite service of such bailable warrant and
furnishing the bail by the respondent before the CJM Parasiya for his
appearance before this Court on 25.8.2014, he did not appear.
      Apart the aforesaid, service report of warrant of arrest issued
against the respondent in compliance of the order dated 11.8.2014 is
still awaited.
      Let same be requisitioned through reminder within three
weeks and case be listed in the week commencing 17.11.2014 and if
the same is not received within the aforesaid period then the
presence of respondent be secured by issuing fresh non-bailable
warrant against him while the presence of surety of the appellant
namely Narayan S/o Bhikari Goli R/s Darbai P. S. Parasiya, be
secured by issuing summons. Such warrant and summons be made
returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015.
      Case be listed accordingly.

                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k.
                               Cr. R. No.999/08.
14.10.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      The service report of bailable warrant issued against the
applicant is still awaited.
      Let same be requisitioned through reminder within three
weeks and case be listed in the week commencing 25.11.2014 and if
the same is not received within the aforesaid period then the
presence of respondent be secured by issuing bailable warrant or
Rs.10,000/- against him. The same be made returnable by fixing a
date in the month of January, 2015.
                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                           Cr. R. No.415/07.
14.10.2014.
      Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Counsel of the applicants against seeks short adjournment with
a fixed date to keep present the applicants before the Court.
      Let this matter be listed on 5.11.2014 for appearance of
applicants.
      It is observed that if the applicants are not appeared on such
date then their presence shall be secured by other mode provided
under the law.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. R. No.2337/07.
14.10.2014.
      Shri S. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Counsel of the applicants seeks short adjournment with a fixed
date to keep present the applicant No.1 before the Court.
      Let this matter be listed on 5.11.2014 for appearance of
applicant No.1.
      It is observed that if the applicants are not appeared on such
date then their presence shall be secured by other mode provided
under the law.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.3335/13.
14.10.2014.
      Shri Vinod Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to
withdraw IA No.8238/14, appellant's application for suspension of
his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail at this stage with liberty
to revive the prayer at subsequent stage.
      Considering his prayer IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not
pressed with liberty aforesaid.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          Cr. A No.1159/13.
14.10.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Although in view of availability of the record with the
assistance of P. L. IA No.23096/13, appellant's application for
suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail could be
considered and adjudicated on merits but in the absence of the
appellant's. counsel the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.487/13.
14.10.2014.
      Ku. Anita Kaithwas, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on I. A. No.16116/13, appellant's application for
suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as he has
been convicted under Section 328 of IPC for RI five years with fine
of Rs.2,000/-.
      Appellant's counsel submits that taking into consideration the
evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety, even then no
offence is made out against the appellant. In continuation she said
that considering the period suffered by the appellant in jail since the
date of his arrest i. e. 19.9.2011 till today out of the awarded jail
sentence in the available circumstances by allowing the IA appellant
be released on bail.
      On the other hand State counsel submits that looking to the
nature of the offence and manner in which it was committed by the
appellant in the running train for which prima-facie sufficient
evidence is available on the record the appellant does not deserve for
suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
      Having heard keeping the arguments advanced, taking into
consideration the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution so
also other circumstances of the case along with period suffered by
the appellant in jail i. e. more than three yeas out of the awarded jail
sentence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, I.
A. is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine
amount, his remaining jail sentence is hereby suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-
along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court appellant Munnawar Alam be released on bail with further
direction to appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on
17.12.2014 and on all subsequent dates which are given by the
office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                          Cr. A No.364/12.
14.10.2014.
      None for the appellants.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Although in view of availability of the record with the
assistance of P. L. IA No.5642/12, an application filed on behalf of
appellant No.2/ Ravi @ Ravi Kumar for suspension of his remaining
jail sentence and grant of bail could be considered and adjudicated
on merits but in the absence of the appellants' counsel the same is
dismissed for want of prosecution.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2008/2011.
14.10.2014.
      Shri K. K. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.5970/14,
forth repeat application filed on behalf of appellant No.1 for
suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
      It is noted that on earlier occasion this case was listed on
17.6.2014, 11.7.2014, 23.7.2014 and 1.9.2014 for consideration of
aforesaid IA but no one was present to prosecute the same,
consequently, the case was adjourned on all such dates.
      On asking the counsel to make his submission, on which he
seeks short adjournment to examine some legal position before
making his submission.
      Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to
place under the same head in the week commencing 10.11.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.14691/14.
14.10.2014.
      Shri T. K. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Earlier this matter was taken up in the earlier hours of day but
that time P. L. prayed to keep the matter as passover as he wants to
verify from his office whether the case diary is received or not.
      On taking up the matter after lunch session, learned P. L.
submits that he is not under the receipt of the case diary and seeks
short adjournment to call and produce the same.
      Learned P. L. is directed either to produce the case diary on
3.11.2014 or to keep present the Investigation officer along with the
case dairy on such date to explain the circumstance on which he
could not send the case diary inspite intimation of the A. G. office.
      Let this matter be listed on 3.11.2014.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                          M. Cr. C. No.12618/14.
14.10.2014.
         None for the applicant, even on calling the case in the second
round.
         Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
         Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of the case
diary.
         In view of availability of case diary this petition filed under
Section 438 of Cr. P. C. could be considered and adjudicated on
merits but in the absence of the applicant's counsel the same is
dismissed for want of prosecution.


                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15145/14.
15.10.2014.
      Shri R. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 26.8.2014 in
connection with Crime No.101/14, registered at Police Station Satai
District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Section 376,
450, 506-B of IPC.
      In the course of the arguments in response of query of the
Court based on the averments of the FIR as well as the interrogatory
statement of the prosecution available in the case diary instead to
argue further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw
this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on
after recording the deposition of prosecutrix in the trial.
      Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed with liberty aforesaid.
                                               (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                     Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15151/14.
15.10.2014.
      Shri Aruvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 22.6.2014 in
connection with Crime No.569/14, registered at Police Station
Kolgawan District Satna for the offence punishable under Section
376 (2) (g) of IPC.
      In the course of the arguments in response of query of the
Court based on the averments of the FIR as well as the interrogatory
statement of the prosecutrix available in the case diary instead to
argue further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw
this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on
after recording the deposition of prosecutrix in the trial.
      Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed with liberty aforesaid.
                                               (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                     Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15166/14.
15.10.2014.
       Shri Sachin Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent No.2.
       Before beginning the arguments by the applicant's counsel the
State counsel has raised the objection regarding maintainability of
this petition saying that subsequent to dismissal of the application of
the applicant filed under Section 439 (2) of Cr. P. C. by the Sessions
Court the applicant has a remedy to challenge the impugned order by
way of revision, therefore, the impugned petition under Section 439
(2) of Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. Such objection is kept pending
for adjudication till appearance of respondent No.1.
       Issue notice against admission of this petition to the
respondent No.1. The same be made returnable within one month.
    Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be taken
within three working days, failing which this petition shall stand
dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.
       Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid
notice.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15291/14.
15.10.2014.
      Shri Z. M. Shah, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 20.5.2014 in
connection with Crime No.483/14, registered at Police Station
Jahangirabad, Bhopal, for the offence punishable under Section 363,
366, 376 of IPC and ¾, 5/6 and 7/8 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
      In the course of the arguments in response of query of the
Court based on the averments of the FIR as well as the interrogatory
statement of the prosecutrix available in the case diary instead to
argue further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw
this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on
after recording the deposition of prosecutrix in the trial or material
change in the circumstance.
      Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed with liberty aforesaid.
                                             (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                   Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15238/14.
15.10.2014.
      Shri B. R. Kosta, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned G. A. submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 8.9.2014 in
connection with Crime No.31/14, registered at Police Station Mawai
AJAK Thana Mandla, for the offence punishable under Section 363,
366, 376 (J) of IPC, ¾, of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and 3(1) (xii) 3(2)(v) of S. C. S. T. (Prevention
of Atrocities), Act.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the case diary taking into consideration the nature of
evidence collected by the investigating agency, including the
statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C.
according to which she is pregnant from the applicant,              without
expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is
allowed.
      It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Ankit Yadav shall be
released on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of
hearing before the trial court. His single non-appearance before the
trial court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                               (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                     Judge
k
                           M. Cr. C. No.15228/14.
15.10.2014.
       Shri K. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant.
       Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
       Learned G. A. submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
       Heard.
       This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 21.8.2014 in
connection with Crime No.479/2014, registered at Police Station
Moghat Road District Khandwa for the offence punishable under
Section 302, 307/34, 120-B, 212 and 201 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms
Act.
       The applicant's counsel after taking me through the averments
of the petition as well as the papers placed on record fairly submitted
that charge sheet has not been filed till today in the matter but in the
available circumstances, this petition could be heard and adjudicated
even before filing the charge sheet. In continuation he said that
some riot had taken place at Khandwa and on account of that in
order to control law and order situation the police authorities has
registered some criminal cases including the present one by
fabricating the false story and that is why the name of the applicant
and other persons have not been stated in the FIR lodged by injured
Saleem but subsequently investigating agency has falsely implicated
to the applicant but during the course of investigation the police
could not collect any positive information against the applicant
showing his involvement in the alleged incident and prayed for
allowing this petition.
       On the other hand with the assistance of the case diary the
State counsel has opposed the aforesaid prayer saying that looking to
the nature of the offence and manner in which it was committed by a
group of the persons during the course of riot in Khandwa, the
applicant does not deserve for grant of bail. However, he fairly
conceded that injured Saleem has not named the present applicant or
any other person in the Dehati Nalsi and prayed for dismissal of this
petition.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the case diary taking into consideration that the name of the
present applicant was not stated in the FIR as culprit of the incident
and the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition
is allowed.
      It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Kamlesh shall be released
on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of hearing
before the trial court.     His single non-appearance before the trial
court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.
                                              (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                    Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.959/14.
15.10.2014.
      Shri Sujat Ali, learned counsel for the the appellant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to
withdraw IA No.14732/2014, appellant's application for suspension
of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as not pressed at this
stage with liberty to revive the prayer after after facing some
substantial part of awarded jail sentence.
      Considering the aforesaid prayer IA is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn and not pressed at this stage with liberty aforesaid.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15371/14.
15.10.2014.
      Shri Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Applicant's counsel seeks for and is granted short adjournment
to make his submission on merits of this petition for grant of bail, as
he wants to take additional instruction before making his submission
in the matter.
      Let this matter be placed under the same head in the week
commencing 27.10.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2225/09.
15.10.2014.
      Shri S. K. Karan, learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on I. A. No.19815/14, which is first application of
appellant No.1 Chetram while third repeat application of appellant
No.2 Pancham for suspension of their remaining jail sentence and
grant of bail, as each of them along other co-accused has been
convicted and sentenced under Section 307/34 of IPC for RI ten
years with fine of Rs.1,000/-.
      It is noted that first application of appellant No.2 was
dismissed on merits vide order dated 8.1.2010 by the coordinate
Bench of this Court while the second application was dismissed vide
order dated 25.6.2010 by the same Bench in view of earlier dismissal
of first application on merits. Subsequently, concerning Hon'ble
Judge of the coordinate Bench has demitted the office. In such
premises this appeal is listed before this Bench for consideration of
aforesaid IA.
      As per available record the appellant No.1 Chetram is in jail
since the date of his arrest i. e. 14.8.2008 till today while the
appellant No.2 Pancham was remained in judicial custody from
14.8.2008 to 4.11.2008 and thereafter he was released on bail and
since the date of the impugned judgment dated 9.10.2009, he is
facing the jail sentence. In such premises the appellant No.1 has
suffered more than six years while the appellant No.2 has suffered
more than five years out of the awarded jail sentence.
      Having heard      keeping the arguments advanced, I have
carefully gone through the record of the trial Court along with the
 impugned judgment, in the available circumstance according to
which the hand of the victim Komal was chopped off by causing the
blow of Axe by co-accused Bheekam while the Chetram was sitting
on the chest of the victim, on making certain query from the
appellant's counsel, on which the appellants' counsel seeks
permission to withdraw this IA with respect of appellant No.1
Chetram as not pressed with liberty to press this IA till the extent of
appellant No.2, Pancham.
      Considering his prayer IA is dismissed as withdrawn with
respect of appellant No.1, Chetram while the same is taken up for
consideration with respect of appellant No.2. Pancham.
        Having heard taking into consideration the age of appellant
No.2, Pancham i. e. 70 years and the role attributed by him, as he has
given only a blow of stick on the victim along with the period
suffered by him in jail i. e. more than five years, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the matter, I. A. is allowed till the extent of
this appellant and subject to verification of depositing the fine
amount, his remaining jail sentence is hereby suspended.
       It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/-
along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court appellant No.2 Pancham shall be released on bail with further
direction to appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on
27.2.2015 and on all subsequent dates which are given by the office
in this regard till disposal of this appeal.
       C. C. as per rules.
                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.15192/14,
16.10.2014.
      Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Learned counsel of the applicant seeks for and is granted a
period of three days to cure the default, failing which this petition
shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the
Bench.
      Subject to curing the default, office to proceed further.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.14473/14,
16.10.2014.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the applicant/ State.
      Learned P. L. seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days
to cure the default, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed
automatically without further reference to the Bench.
      Subject to curing the default, office to proceed further.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                             Cr. A. No.2752/14.
16.10.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question
of entertainability of this appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr. P. C.
      After perusing the impugned judgment along with the appeal
memo, I am of the considered view that victim may file the appeal
under Section 372 of Cr. P. C., if the accused of the case is acquitted
but whenever accused is convicted and sentenced then victim has a
remedy to file Criminal Revision for enhancement of punishment
and not criminal appeal. In such premises, it is held that this appeal
is not maintainable under the proviso of Section 372 of Cr. P. C.
hence, the same is hereby dismissed by extending a liberty to the
appellant to file criminal revision.
      Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned
judgment by retaining its photo copy          to the appellant's counsel
enabling him to file the criminal revision.
      C. C. as per rules.

                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                         Cr. R. No.2059/14.
16.10.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Inspite listing the matter before the Registry on 29.9.2014 to
cure the default no one was appeared and default has also not been
cured till 8.10.2014, on which the case is placed before the Court for
appropriate order but on taking up the matter no one is present to
assist the Court. In such premises it appears that applicant is no
more interested in prosecuting this revision. Hence, the same is
hereby dismissed for not curing the default so also for want of
prosecution.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                          Cr. R. No.2016/14,
16.10.2014.
      Shri Amit Bhurrak, learned counsel for the applicant.
      He seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days to file
appropriate application to cure the default, failing which this revision
shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the
Bench.
      Subject to curing the default, office to proceed further.


                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                        Cr. A. No.1446/2013.
16.10.2014.
      Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Appellant's counsel seeks short adjournment with a fix date to
keep present appellant before the Court.
      Let this matter be placed on 25.11.2014 for appearance of the
appellant.

                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.13583/12.
16.10.2014.
      Smt. Alka Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      The applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this
petition saying that during pendency of this petition the trial has been
concluded and this petition has become infructuous.
      Considering her prayer this petition is dismissed as withdrawn
and become infructuous.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.12984/12.
16.10.2014.
      Shri Rajesh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Applicant's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen
days to file appropriate application for conversion of this petition in
to the Criminal Revision in compliance of earlier order, failing
which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without
further reference to the Bench. However, the applicant shall be at
liberty to file Criminal Revision against the impugned order, if the
same is permissible under the law.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.2014/12.
16.10.2014.
     None for the appellant.
     Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
     In the absence of the appellant's counsel the case is adjourned.


                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.1938/12.
16.10.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Let the presence of the appellant No.1, Sher Singh @ Sheru be
secured before this Court by issuing non-bailable warrant against
him. Same be made returnable by fixing a date in the         month
January, 2015.

                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                          Cr. R. No.1091/07.
16.10.2014.
      Shri Jayant Neekhra, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Applicant's counsel again seeks short adjournment to keep
present the applicant as well as the victim before the Court for
verification of compromise application.
      Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to
place under the same head on 25.11.2014.
      The applicant's counsel is directed to keep present the
applicant as well as the victim.
                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.2525/12.
16.10.2014.
      Shri D. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Appellant Prabhakant Upadhyay is present in person,
identified by his counsel.
      Having heard on IA No.18799/14, appellant's application for
condoning his non-appearance in the Registry on 17.9.2014, for the
reasons stated in it, the same is allowed such non-appearance of the
appellant is hereby condoned.
      After marking his presence on record, he is directed to appear
before the Registry of this court firstly on 22.1.2015 and on such
other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of this
appeal.
                                         (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                               Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.1729/06.
16.10.2014.
      None for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today as reference case with Cr. A.
No.2525/12.    After passing order in such appeal this case is
adjourned with a direction to place always with the aforesaid
criminal appeal.

                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.3217/99.
16.10.2014.
      Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Having heard on IA No.19383/14, with the signature of the
appellants' counsel to place the death certificate of appellant No.2
Girdhari on record, for the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed
and annexed death certificate is taken on record.
      Learned P. L. seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days
to call and place the verification report of regarding death of said
appellant No.2.
      Appellants' counsel is directed to supply an additional set of
aforesaid IA along with the copy of death certificate to the P. L.
during the course of the day enabling him to call the aforesaid report.
      Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 24.11.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                        Cr. R. No.1393/2014.
16.10.2014.
      Shri S. K. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Applicant's counsel is directed to file the copy of the charge
sheet within a period of ten days enabling the Court to consider the
matter.
      Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week
commencing 10.11.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.15670/14.
16.10.2014.
      Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State.
      State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary.
      Heard.
      This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for
grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 24.9.2014 in
connection with Crime No.204/14, registered at Police Station
G.R.P. Bina, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Section
294, 323, 506 and 353 of IPC.
      Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after
perusing the case diary in the available circumstances of the case
along with the circumstance that applicant is in custody since
24.9.2014 and except Section 353 of IPC all other offences are
bailable, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this
petition is allowed.
      It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Thirty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Mukesh shall be released
on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of hearing
before the trial court.     His single non-appearance before the trial
court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.
      C. C. as per rules.

                                              (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                                    Judge
k
                          Cr. R. No.938/14.
17.10.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In the absence of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned
with a direction to place under the same head after six weeks. Office
is further directed to place this matter in Mega Lok Adalata, if the
same is schedule in near furture.
                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                         M. Cr. C. No.458/14.
17.10.2014.
      Smt. Alka Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In view of listing the matter IA No.14020/14, an application
for early hearing does not require any further consideration, hence
the same is hereby disposed of.
      Heard on IA No.558/14, applicant's application for issuing ad-
interim direction to release the seized vehicle on Supurdnama in
pendency of this petition.
      Having heard the counsel, in the available circumstances,
according to which proceeding for confiscation of the seized vehicle
is still pending before the Competent Authority of the Forest, as
apprised by the petition counsel, I am not inclined to grant any ad-
interim relief, as prayed in the application. Hence, IA is dismissed.
However, Respondent No.2/ Competent Authority is directed to take
an endeavor to hear such case and decide the same on merits in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law within three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
      Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondent
No.2/ Competent Authority within 15 days from today.
      It being an admitted petition, office is directed list the same for
final hearing in due course.
                                       (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                             Judge
k
                            Cr. R. No.98/14.
17.10.2014.
        Shri Jagdish Singrol, learned counsel for the applicant.
        Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
        Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary
but the applicant's counsel seeks short adjournment on the ground of
non-availability of arguing counsel Shri R. S. Patel, as he is busy
before the Division Bench.
        Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to
place under the same head in the week commencing 1.12.2014.
        Learned P. L. is directed to produce the case diary on such
date.
                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                       M. Cr. C. No.13940/14.
17.10.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Let default raised by the office be cured within fifteen days.
      Subject to curing the default, if the case is mature for
admission then it be listed in the week commencing 10.11.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                        Cr. R. No.2129/2014.
17.10.2014.
      Shri Uday Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Applicant's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen
days to file appropriate application to convert this petition into the
Criminal Appeal under the proviso of Section 372 of Cr. P. C.
      Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 10.11.2014.


                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                         Cr. A. No.1799/13.
17.10.2014.
      Ms. Anjali Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      IA No.17284/14, an application for amendment in the appeal
and IA No.17029, appellant's application for suspension of his
remaining jail sentence and grant of bail have already been
considered and allowed vide order dated25.7.2013 by the coordinate
Bench of this Court. Hence, office is directed not to list such IAs
again in future.
                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                           Cr. R. No.1197/13.
17.10.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      In compliance of the order dated 28.9.2014, requisite P. F. be
submitted within five working days from today, failing which this
revision shall stand dismissed automatically without further
reference to the Bench.
                                     (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                           Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.4100/12.
17.10.2014.
      None for the applicant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question
of default raised by the office regarding non-payment of PF.
      On earlier occasion on 15.9.2014, this case was listed for same
purpose but on taking up the matter no one was present to,
consequently the same was adjourned and same position is today that
on taking up the matter no one is present to make any submission on
the question of default. So, in such premises, this petition is hereby
dismissed on account of non-compliance of order dated 10.1.2014 so
also for want of prosecution.
                                      (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                            Judge
k
                           Cr. A. No.2438/12.
17.10.2014.
      Shri N. P. Rathor, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.
      Heard on IA No.12879/14, appellant's application for early
hearing on IA No.15241/14, for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant, for the reasons stated in it the same is allowed.
      At this stage appellant's counsel by referring the copy of order
dated 5.9.2014 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.
A. No. 3226/13, submits that co-accused of the case Parvez Qureshi
has been directed to be released on bail. Copy of such order is taken
on record.
      In view of aforesaid submission office is directed to list this
matter before the appropriate Bench keeping in view the newly
implemented roster policy in the week commencing 27.10.2014 for
consideration of IA No.15241/14, appellant's application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.


                                        (U. C. Maheshwari)
                                              Judge
k
                      Cr. R. No.1177/2010.
17.10.2014.
      Shri S. K. Nema, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the State.
      Heard.
                             ORDER

1. The applicant/accused has directed this revision being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.7.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Criminal Appeal No.103/10, upholding his conviction awarded by the trial Court under Section 325 of IPC, he has been sentenced for RI six months with fine of Rs.300/-.

2. The applicant's counsel without challenging any finding of the impugned judgment holding the above mentioned conviction of the applicant has made his limited submissions that considering the long pendency of the case and during such period he has suffered the mental agony of the case and besides this also suffered the jail sentence of 60 days between 23.7.2010 to 22.9.2010 from the date of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court till passing the order for suspension of his remaining jail sentence by this Court. Thus, by adopting the lenient view his awarded jail sentence be reduced up to the aforesaid period for which he has already undergone under the discretion of the Court. Therefore, the entire factual matrix of the case are not being mentioned in this order. On arising the occasion the same could be taken into consideration from the impugned judgments in which the same were elaborately stated by the Courts below.

3. On the other hand State counsel by justifying the impugned judgment has seriously opposed the aforesaid prayer of the applicant's counsel and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

4. Having heard the parties keeping in view their submissions, on perusing the record I have not found any perversity infirmity or any thing contrary to the propriety of law in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below in holding the applicant's guilty for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, there is no scope in the case to extend the acquittal to the applicant, consequently the alleged conviction of the applicant is hereby affirmed.

5. Looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant I do not find fit to extend the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act to him.

6. So for the prayer of the applicant's counsel for reducing the awarded jail sentence is concerned, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent fact on record that the applicant is facing the mental agony of this case since long and also suffered the jail sentence of 60 days and as per available record he did not have any criminal antecedents and in such premises he appears to be first offender. Thus considering all these circumstances by adopting the lenient view, I deem fit to reduce his jail sentence up to the aforesaid period of 60 days for which he has already undergone, by enhancing some fine amount with a direction to pay the enhanced some to the victim to sub serve the justice with her also.

7. Therefore, by affirming the aforesaid conviction of the applicant this revision is allowed in part and his awarded jail sentence under Section 325 of IPC is hereby reduced to the aforesaid period of 60 days for which he has already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,800/-. The enhanced fine amount is to be deposited by the applicant in the trial Court within three months from today, failing in depositing the enhanced fine he has to suffer further one month simple imprisonment and on depositing the enhanced fine amount within the aforesaid period the same be given to the complainant Tara Bai by calling her in the trial Court through summons. Till this extent the impugned judgment is modified while other findings of the same are hereby affirmed.

8. Revision is allowed in part, as indicated above.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.337/2011.

17.10.2014.

Shri Lalit Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. At the request of the appellant's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head after three weeks.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.1608/09.
17.10.2014.

Shri Karan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. At the request of the appellant's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head after three weeks.



      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                Judge
k
                            Cr. A. No.1086/09.
17.10.2014.
         None for appellant No.1.

Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 and 3.

Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. At the request of the counsel of appellant No.2 and 3 the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the month of November, 2014.



         (U. C. Maheshwari)                   (Subhash Kakade)
               Judge                               Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.6667/14.
27.10.2014.

Shri S. C. Datt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. I deem fit to hear this petition after calling the present status of the Sessions Trial, hence office is directed to call report regarding present status of the trial within three weeks and case be listed under the same head immediately thereafter or in any case in the first week of December, 2014 along with such report and connected M. Cr. C. No.8723/14.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.8723/14.

27.10.2014.

Shri S. C. Datt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. I deem fit to hear this petition after calling the present status of the Sessions Trial, hence office is directed to call report regarding present status of the trial within three weeks and case be listed under the same head immediately thereafter or in any case in the first week of December, 2014 along with such report and connected M. Cr. C. No.6667/14.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.8661/14.

27.10.2014.

Shri P. C. Paliwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. At the request of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to placed under the same head in the week commencing 17.11.2014.

Case diary be produced on such date.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.7835/2014.

27.10.2014.

Shri S. C. Datt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 2.3.2014 in connection with Crime No62/14, registered at Police Station Bahoriband District Katni for the offence punishable under Section 294, 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 450 of IPC.

In the course of the arguments in of available medical evidence and some other circumstances on making certain query, on which Senior counsel of the applicant instead to argue further seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage after recording the deposition of concerning Doctor.

Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.433/14.

27.10.2014.

Shri Rajesh Maindirretta learned counsel for the appellant. Shri D. N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. In the course of the arguments on asking the appellants' counsel whether concurrent findings of both the Courts below on the question of adverse possession as well as on the question of execution and genuineness of alleged Will projected by the appellants/ defendants could be interfered under Section 100 of CPC, by framing the substantial questions of law, on which the appellants' counsel seeks short adjournment to examine some more legal position before making further submission on the question of admission.

Considering his prayer, case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head on 3.11.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.75/02.

28.10.2014.

Sole appellant is reportedly dead.

Shri Istiaq Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant the proposed legal representative of deceased appellant mentioned in IA No.5771/06.

Shri Rajesh Nema, learned counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2 to 7, although served. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.8. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.5772/06 and IA No.5771/06, the applications on behalf of the applicant Laxmi Narayan, the proposed legal representative/ nephew of sole appellant, who is already on record as respondent No.4 to substitute his name at the place of appellant Sundar Bai.

It is apparent fact that such IA has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 on the strength of alleged Will annexed with IA No.5771/06, as alleged executed by the deceased sole appellant in favour of Laxmi Narayan on 4th January, 2002.

I am of the considered view that a person who comes on the strength of testamentary document like Will to claim any right in the disputed property or to substitute his name as legal representative on record then unless the genuineness of Will is inquired and proved such a person like applicant Laxmi Narayan could not be permitted to transpose his name after the death of testator. In such premises the inquiry of genuineness of aforesaid Will of deceased appellant is necessary and such inquiry could not be held by this Court. Hence, office is directed to send both the applications along with the annexed papers to the trial Court within thirty days from today with a direction to hold the inquiry in respect of genuineness of aforesaid Will and send back the matter to this Court on or before 30.6.2015 along with findings. Trial court is further directed to extend the opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their contention. The applicant is directed to produce the original Will before the trial court on the first hearing to hold the directed inquiry.

The parties are directed through their counsel to remain present before the trial Court firstly on 1.12.2014 and also on such other dates as are fixed by such Court in this regard till completion of the inquiry.

It is noted that on asking the counsel of the private respondent whether he wants to file any reply of aforesaid both the application, on which he fairly submits that he does not want to file any reply of such applications.

Let this matter be listed for further order in the first week of July, 2015.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.12/2002.

28.10.2014.

Shri G. S. Baghel, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 6. Respondent No.7 is reportedly dead. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.8. Issue notice of IA No.1998/14, IA No.1997/14 and IA No.1999/14, to the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.7, mentioned in IA No.1999/14. The same be made returnable within two months Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be taken within seven days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.892/01.

28.10.2014.

Shri R. P. Kanojiya, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents, although served. Having heard on IA No.9048/14, appellant's application for early hearing of this appeal on merits, for the reasons stated in it so also keeping in view that this appeal is pending for adjudication since 2001, the IA is allowed and office is directed to list this matter for final hearing either in the month of November or December, 2014 on in any case in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.860/01.

28.10.2014.

Shri Pramod Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants. Notice against respondent No.1 to 4 and 6 have already been dispensed with vide order dated 19.6.2014, keeping in view that this appeal could be heard and adjudicated effectively only in presence of the appellants and respondent No.5 because such respondents were proceeded ex-party before the trial court.

Shri U. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.5. This case is listed today for appropriate order for issuing notice to the other side but in view of aforesaid no order is required in this regard.

It being an admitted appeal is pending for adjudication since 2001, hence office is directed to list the same final hearing on some early date, if possible then it be listed either in the month of January or February, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.834/01 28.10.2014.

Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R. K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2, although served. Respondent No.3 is still unserved.

I deem fit to hear the arguments on pending IAs after service of notice on the respondent No.3. Hence, it is directed that On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within ten days notice of the admission as well as MCP No.4172/01, returnable within six weeks be issued to the respondents, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.819/01.

28.10.2014.

Appellant No.1 is reportedly dead.

Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant No.2. Shri Subodh Tamrakar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2. Having heard on IA No.13577/13, an application filed on behalf of the appellant No.2 to delete the name of appellant No.1 from the array of the appeal memo, for the reasons stated in it the same is allowed and appellant No.2 is directed to delete the name of appellant No.1 from the array of appeal memo within seven working day.

Subject to aforesaid correction office is directed to list the matter for admission in the week commencing 17.11.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.666/01.

28.10.2014.

Shri Istiaq Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant No.4, 6 and 7.

Appellant No.5 is reportedly dead.

None for proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant No.5, mentioned in IA No.8033/13, although served with such IA.

Shri Shashank Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, 4 and 6 to 9.

Respondent No.3 and 5 are still unserved. Before beginning the arguments on IA No.8033/13, on asking the appellants' counsel how this application could be considered when the same is filed barred by time, on which he seeks for and is granted a period of three weeks to file appropriate application for setting aside the abatement of this appeal till the extent of appellant No.5 and condoning the alleged delay in filing such proceeding.

Let this matter be listed in the first week of December, 2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.778/2003.

28.10.2014.

Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission.

Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view his arguments after perusing the record of the Courts below along with the impugned judgments this appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

1. "Whether the appellate Court has committed error in decreeing the impugned suit of the respondent No.1 to 3 against the appellant by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby the suit of such respondents was dismissed in toto."

2. "Whether the appellate Court has committed error in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the impugned suit of the respondent No.1 to 3 against the appellant in lack of requisite pleadings of alleged fraud." Let notice of this admission along with the copy of the framed substantial question of law, returnable within three months be issued to the respondent No.1 to 3. P. F. along with all requisites of registered post be submitted within seven days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

M. C. P. No.3664/03, appellant's application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC shall be considered after service of notice on the respondent No.1 to 3.

The interim order passed on 22.9.2003 is hereby continued till next hearing.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge S. A. No.173/02.

28.10.2014.

Shri R. D. Hundikar, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents, although represented through duly engaged counsel.

Appellant's counsel seeks short adjournment for further preparation of the matter to make his submission on admission.

It being an old appeal of 2002, as last indulgence by allowing the aforesaid prayer, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 17.11.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1307/04.

29.10.2014.

Shri Abhay Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 to 4 although served. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.5. Heard on IA No.9556/2011, appellant's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing ad-interim injunction.

It is noted that while admitting this appeal vide order dated 19.3.2013 and entertaining the IA the respondents were directed not to create any third party interest in the property in question till next date of hearing.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments after perusing the IA and the record of the Courts below, in the available circumstances by allowing the IA aforesaid interim order dated 19.3.2012 is hereby made absolute till disposal of this appeal.

It being an admitted appeal of 2004, office is directed to expedite the hearing of this appeal on merits and list the matter for final hearing on some early date.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1235-04.

29.10.2014.

None for the appellant as well as for respondent No.1 to 7, although served.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.8. This case is listed today in compliance of the order dated 18.6.2014 for consideration of MCP No.5220/04, appellant's application for condoning the delay in filing this appeal, as the same is filed barred by 296 days, as reported by the office. IA appears to be supported by an affidavit of Jai Kumar Tiwari.

In view of provision of Order 41 Rule 17 r/ w Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC in the absence of appellant and his counsel aforesaid IA could not be considered on merits. In such premises there is no option with the court except to dismiss the IA for want of prosecution. Hence IA is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1195/04 29.10.2014.

Shri J. Prasad learned counsel for the appellant seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days to comply the order dated 5.8.2014, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1178/04.

29.10.2014.

Shri Akhilesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants. Respondent No.1 is reportedly dead. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 mentioned in IA No.14325/11.

Subject to order of the Court the respondent No.2 and 3 are yet to be noticed.

In the course of the arguments on IA No.14326/11, in response of some query of the Court, the appellants' counsel seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days to file appropriate application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting the aside abatement of the appeal cause on account of death of the deceased respondent No.1 and on non-taking the appropriate steps to substitute his legal representative on record with the prescribed period.

Apart the aforesaid he also wants to file supplementary application in support of IA No.14326/11, appellant's application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for explaining the additional circumstances, so also for modifying the prayer clause of the same.

Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week commencing 1.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1059/04.

29.10.2014.

Shri Amit Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Notice of MCP No.4114/04, an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal issued to respondent No.1 in compliance of the order dated 29.8.2004 was received back unserved long back in the years 2004 and since no steps has been taken on behalf of the appellant to substitute his legal representatives on record, so in such premises this appeal appears to be held abated till the extent of respondent No.1.

Shri G. S. Baghel, learned counsel for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3, although served. Counsel of respondent No.2 apprises me that respondent No.1 had passed away after passing the impugned judgment and decree by the appellate Court and inspite that this appeal being preferred against the dead person, the same is nullity and prayed to pass appropriate order in this regard.

Such submission is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant's submits that inspite making efforts he could not trace out his brief in his office and seeks short adjournment of fifteen days to trace out the brief and examine the legal position and if necessary to file appropriate application to rectify aforesaid mistake pointed out by counsel of respondent No.2.

Considering aforesaid prayer, case is adjourned with a direction to place in the week commencing 24.11.2014.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.620/03.

29.10.2014.

Shri K. S. Jha, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri K. N. Fakruddin, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is reportedly dead. Shri Saket agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3-A to 3-N, whose names are to be inserted in the appeal memo in compliance of order dated 2.4.2014.

Appellants' counsel seeks for and is granted a period of seven working days to incorporate the name of the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 on record, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Shri Saket Agrawal, advocate has also given his appearance on behalf of the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.2, mentioned in Ia No.5816/05, and undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on their behalf within one months. Subject to filing the Vakalatnama within the aforesaid period he is permitted to defend this appeal on their behalf.

At the request of the counsel present they are heard on IA No.5818/05, appellants' application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the IA No.5817/05, an application filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the abatement of the appeal caused on account of death of the deceased appellant and on non-taking the appropriate steps to substitute his legal representative on record with the prescribed period. The same is supported by an affidavit of appellant Farid Mohd Khan.

Having perused the IA, for the reasons stated in the IA, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay. Hence, the IA is allowed and the alleged delay is condoned.

Pursuant to it, IA No.5817/05, an application of Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the aforesaid abatement is taken for consideration, for the reasons on which the aforesaid earlier IA is allowed on the same reasons this IA is also allowed and alleged abatement of appeal is hereby set aside.

After setting aside the abatement of appeal IA No.5816/05, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC is taken up for consideration, the proposed persons appear to be natural heirs and legal representatives of respondent No.2, hence by allowing the IA the appellants' counsel is directed to carry out necessary correction in the appeal memo within seven working days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Subject to aforesaid compliance, office is directed to proceed further.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.501/03.

29.10.2014.

Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 and 2.

Appellant No.3 is reportedly dead.

Respondent is still unserved.

Notice of IA No.2968/03, an application of the proposed legal representatives of the deceased appellant No.3 to substitute their name on the record, issued to the respondent has been received back unserved.

On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days fresh notice as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the respondent, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.342/03.

29.10.2014.

Sole appellant is dead.

Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased appellant mentioned in IA No.3846/08, an application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC.

The notice of aforesaid IA issued to the respondent is received back unserved with the report that the respondent was not available at the mentioned address at the time of service of such notice. In such premises, it is directed that on payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days fresh notice as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the respondent, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.300/03.

29.10.2014.

Shri S. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant None for respondent No.1, although served. Respondent No.2 is still unserved.

On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days fresh notice as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the respondent No.2, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

The interim order passed earlier is continued till next hearing.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1601/06 29.10.2014.

Shri J. P. Dhimole, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2. Appellants' counsel apprises me that IA No.1029/11 to substitute the legal representatives of appellant No.1 has already been allowed vide order dated 26.9.2014 and such IA does not required any consideration. However, he seeks a period of seven days to incorporate the name of the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 in the array of appeal memo.

On perusing the aforesaid order sheet, his submission is found correct. Hence, office is directed not to list this IA for consideration in future. However, a period of seven days is granted to the counsel of the appellants to incorporate the name of the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 in the array of appeal memo, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

On perusing the record, I have found that notice of admission has not been served on respondent No.1, so in such premises it is directed that on payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within fifteen days fresh notice of admission as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the respondent No.1, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.725/2006.

29.10.2014.

Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K. K. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission.

Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view his arguments after perusing the record of the Courts below along with the impugned judgments this appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

1. "Whether the approach of the appellate Court dismissing the suit of the appellant without considering the provision of Section 24 of Electricity Act 1910, according to which before disconnecting the Electricity or making the demand of arrears a show cause notice of seven days is necessary, is sustainable under the law ?"

Counsel of the respondent has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required.

Let this matter be listed for final hearing in due course.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1455/04.

30.10.2014.

Smt. Gulab Patel, learned counsel for the appellant No.1. Appellant No.2 is reportedly dead.

None for the respondents.

Heard on IA No.11701/14, an application of the appellant No.1 under Order 22 Rule 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC for deleting the name of appellant No.2 from the array of the appeal memo.

As per averments of the IA appellant No.1 being sole legal representative of appellant No.2 is already on record, although in other capacity, hence there is no necessity to take any step to substitute the legal representative of appellant No.2. In such premises the prayer for deleting the name of appellant No.2 from the array of appeal memo is made.

Having heard for the reasons stated in the IA, the same is allowed and counsel of appellant no.1 is directed to delete the name of appellant No.2 from the array of appeal memo within seven working days.

Subject to such correction office to proceed further.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1359-04.

30.10.2014.

Shri R. P. Khare, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Sarita Kochhal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2. Issue notice of IA No.3931/08, to the proposed respondent No.3 namely Mohd Habib S/o Sukrulla Khan, R/o, Ward No.5, Purani Basti, Maihar District Satna as well as of IA No.10089/11, to proposed respondent Rajendra Namdeo S/o Girdharilal, R/o Katra Bazar, Maihar District Satna. Such notices be made returnable in the month of January, 2015.

Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post be taken within seven days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Counsel of respondent No.1 also seeks for and is granted a period of one month to file the reply of aforesaid both the IA as well as of IA No.5096/04 and IA No.4403/12, appellant's application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC and under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC respectively.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1062/04.

30.10.2014.

Shri Pramod Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Vibudhandra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (a) to 1(f) and 2(a) to 2(c) and respondent No.3.

Respondent No.1(g), 2 (f), 2(g) 2(j) and 4 (d) appears to be unserved.

None for respondent No. 2(d), 2(e) 2(i), 4(a) to 4(c), although served.

On payment of fresh P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days fresh notice as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the unserved respondents, as stated above, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notices.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.276-04.

30.10.2014.

Smt. Shobhna Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 and 2, although served. Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Heard on MCP No.1139/04, appellant's application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, as the same is filed barred by 164 days, reported by the office.

The averments of the IA have not been disputed by any of the private respondents by filing the reply.

Having heard perused the IA, for the reasons stated in the IA, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay. Hence, the IA is allowed and the alleged delay is condoned.

The record of the courts below are available, hence appellant's counsel is directed to make the submission on admission, on which she seeks short adjournment for further preparation of the matter.

Let this matter be listed for admission in the week commencing 24.11.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.272/04.

30.10.2014.

Shri R. L. Ariha, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri M. P. shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3. Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent No.4. At this stage Shri S. P. Pathak, Advocate by referring his office copy of IA No.9140/06 having the endorsement of the Registry, said that he has filed such IA on behalf of the applicant Ram Sajivan Mishra on 18.9.2006 and prayed to hear such IA also.

On making efforts by my Reader, he could not trace out such IA. Hence, office is directed to trace out such IA and place on record before next hearing and Shri Pathak is also directed to file photo copy of such IA in the Registry within five working days enabling the office to trace out the same.

Case is listed today for consideration of IA No.9336/08, appellant's application for issuing ad-interim injunction against the respondent but on perusing its prayer clause it appears that the same has been filed for grant of stay against operation and execution of the impugned decree.

In the course of arguments on the aforesaid IA, in view of dismissal of MCP No.1172/04, appellant's application for grant of stay against operation and execution of the impugned decree. vide order dated 24.3.2004, on making some query from the appellant's counsel, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this IA with liberty to file appropriate application by modifying the prayer clause for issuing ad-interim injunction against the respondent.

Considering aforesaid prayer IA is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.

At this stage counsel of the appellant submits that in pendency of this appeal respondent No.1 has passed away on 10.1.2014 and he has filed IA No.14246/14 in the Registry on 9.10.2014 to substitute her legal representatives on record. Such IA is also not placed with the record. Hence, office is directed to trace out such IA and place on record before next hearing and Shri Ariha is also directed to file photo copy of such IA in the Registry within five working days enabling the office to trace out the same.

Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 24.11.2014 for consideration of aforesaid IAs.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.159-04.

30.10.2014.

Shri Aroop Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Saurabh Sahni, learned counsel for respondent. Having heard on IA No.8258/14, appellant's application for early hearing of this appeal on merits, for the reasons stated in it so also keeping in view that this appeal is pending for adjudication since 2004, the IA is allowed and office is directed to list this matter for final hearing before 30.6.2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1065/03.

30.10.2014.

Sole appellant is reportedly dead.

Shri K. S. Jha, learned counsel for the proposed legal representatives of the deceased appellant mentioned in IA No.9317/12.

Shri S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days to file the reply of IA No.9318/12, 9317/12, application of the proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant to substitute their names on record.

On the other hand Shri Jha also seeks for and is granted short adjournment of fifteen days to file an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the IA No.9318/12, filed for setting aside the alleged abatement.

Let this matter be listed under the same head after fifteen days or in any case in the week commencing 8.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1091-12.

30.10.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent No.6. It being an admitted appeal vide order dated 10.2.2014 is list today again for admission and consideration of IA No.11679/12, appellant's application under Order 39 Rule & 2 of CPC.

I have not found any service report of notice issued to the respondent No.2 to 5 in compliance of order dated 10.2.2014.

I deem fit to hear the arguments on the aforesaid IA after service of notice on the aforesaid respondents. In such premises, it is directed that on payment of fresh P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days fresh notice as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the unserved respondent No.2 to 5, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notices for consideration of aforesaid IA.

Office is specifically directed not to list this case again for admission in future.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.609-06.

30.10.2014.

Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anurag Bhadoliya, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Arvind Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2/ the caveator.

Learned senior counsel seeks short adjournment saying that he being busy in other matter could not consulted the assisting counsel in the last evening.

Considering such prayer case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 17.11.2014.

The assisting counsel of the appellant is directed to supply a copy of the appeal memo, IA and annexed documents within two working days to the counsel of respondent No.2/ caveator enabling him to file the reply of IA No.3120/06 before next hearing.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2093-05 30.10.2014.

On taking up the matter Shri Vikas Tiwari, has appeared on behalf of the appellant and said that he has been recently instructed by the appellants to prosecute this appeal and prayed to permit him to file Vakalatnama in the Registry.

On asking the counsel whether he is having the Vakalatnama of the appellants, on which he submits that he is not having the Vakalatnama till this time and prayed for adjournment.

It is apparent fact that the appearing counsel did not possess any Vakalatnama of the appellants and in such premises it would be assumed that NOC has also not been taken by him from the earlier engaged counsel. According to rules, unless the NOC is obtained from the engaged counsel no such permission to appear in the matter could be granted to the aforesaid counsel.

It is also apparent that the engaged counsel of the appellants is not present today and on earlier occasion when the matter was taken up by the coordinate Bench no one was present to prosecute this appeal. In such premises, it appears that appellants want to prolong the litigation and did not not to assist the court to consider the question of admission.

In view of provision of Order 41 Rule 17 of CPC this Court could not consider the question of admission voluntarily.

In view of the aforesaid, it appears that appellants are no more interested in prosecuting this appeal pending since the year 2005 for admission. In such circumstances there is no option with the Court except to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for want want of prosecution.

In view of dismissal of this appeal the interim order passed 14.12.2005 is also come to an end.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.616/04.

31.10.2014.

Shri Lavkush Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 is reportedly dead. Shri C. B. Sharma, learned counsel for proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 mentioned in IA No.10168/05, and for respondent No.2 & 3.

Heard on IA No.10168/05, appellant's application to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record.

Counsel for proposed legal representative of deceased respondent No.1 and other respondents without filing any reply of aforesaid application opposed the IA saying that the name of other legal representatives of such deceased respondent have not been mentioned in the IA but the counsel has not disputed the position of the proposed person as legal representative of such deceased respondent.

In view of aforesaid in response of aforesaid arguments the appellant's counsel submits that subject to supplying the particulars of other legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1, he is ready to take appropriate steps in this regard. In such premises, Shri Sharma is directed to supply the particulars of other legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 to the counsel of the appellant within fifteen days.

Pursuant to it, appellant's counsel is also directed to take appropriate steps within fifteen days from the date of supplying the particulars of other legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1.

Having heard the counsel subject to aforesaid direction IA No.10168/05, being filed within prescribed period of limitation and proposed person being legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1, by allowing the IA the appellant counsel is directed to carry out necessary correction in the array of appeal memo within fifteen working days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.534/04.

31.10.2014.

Appellant No.1 reportedly dead.

Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 as well as for proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1.

Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.11640/13, an application of proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 but counsel of the respondent No.1 submits that he has not been supplied the copy of the same and subject to supplying the copy he seeks short adjournment to file the reply of the same.

On asking the appellant's counsel that how this IA could be considered in the lack of application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC, on which he also seeks short adjournment to file appropriate application in this regard.

Appellants' counsel is directed to supply the copy of aforesaid application to the counsel of the respondent within three days and this matter be listed in the week commencing 17.11.2014.

Meanwhile the respondents may file the reply of aforesaid application.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.504/04.

31.10.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1/State. None for respondent No.2, 4, 6 to 8 and 11. Respondent No.5 is reported dead.

Respondent No.9 and 10 are still unserved. None for the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5 inspite service of notice of IA No.2504/04 on them.

Mere perusal of aforesaid IA it appears that same has been filed without mentioning the date of death of respondent No.5. It is noted that the death certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Mundikhedi is also not having the date of death of such respondent. In the lack of date of death the period of limitation for filing the aforesaid IA could not be calculated. In such premises aforesaid IA deserves to be dismissed on merits. However instead to dismiss the same on merits the same is dismissed for want of prosecution and it is held that this appeal has become abated long before till the extent of respondent No.5. Now same shall be proceeded against other respondents.

It is made clear that the question of abatement of appeal in toto or partial shall be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal. However, appellants' are extended a liberty to file appropriate application by mentioning necessary particulars for setting aside the aforesaid abatement of appeal to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5 on record, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.479-04.

31.10.2014.

Appellant No.1 is reportedly dead.

Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 as well as for legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 mentioned in IA No.4973/07. He undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 within twenty days from today.

Shri G. S. Baghel, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 13. None for respondent No.14 and 15, although served. Heard on IA No.4973/07, an application filed under Order 22 Rule 11 of CPC to substitute the legal representatives of deceased appellant no.1 on record. the same is supported by an affidavit of Smt. Urmila Devi, one of the legal representative of deceased appellant No.1.

In the course of the arguments the counsel of the respondents seriously opposed the aforesaid IA saying that according to the averments of IA the appellant No.1 had died on 7.2.2001 during pendency of the matter before the subordinate Court and not before this Court. Therefore, this application could not be entertained and allowed. In support of his contention he referred his office copy of the IA supplied by the appellant's counsel. But on perusing the original IA it is apparent that such date is 7.2.2007. The death certificate showing the same date 7.2.2007 is also annexed.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments on perusing the IA along with the death certificate, I have found that appellant no.1 had passed away on 7.2.2007 and not on 7.2.2001. IA is also preferred within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, the same is allowed and proposed person being legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 are permitted to substitute their names on record through appellant No.2.

The appellants' counsel is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the array of appeal memo within twenty days.

Subject to aforesaid correction office to proceed further.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.329-98.

3.11.2014.

Shri K. S. Jha learned counsel for the appellants. Respondent No.1 is reported dead, as pointed out by his counsel before the Court on 6.8.2013.

Shri J. P. Dhimole, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.3. In compliance of order dated 6.8.2013, appellants' counsel seeks further period of fifteen days to take appropriate steps to substitute legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.573/98.

3.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

The name of respondent No.1 has already been deleted from the array of appeal memo on account of his death.

Shri G. S. Baghel, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ Laxman.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.7. Counsel of respondent No.3 Shri Baghel submits that respondent No.2 and 4 to 6 were also represented through him but in pendency of this appeal all had passed away, on which appellant has filed a joint application IA No.5767/13 under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2, 4 and 5 on record along with IA No.5769/13 for condoning the delay in filing such earlier application but no application to set aside the abatement of appeal caused on account of death of respondent No.2 and 5 on expiry of a period of 90 days from the date of their death has been filed and in the lack of such application aforesaid IA could not be entertained or adjudicated because the abatement of appeal is an automatic process it does not require any formal or operative order of the Court. In such premises, this appeal has already abated against respondent 2 and 5, so also against respondent No.6 because after his death on 5.1.2014 no steps have been taken on behalf of the appellant to substitute his legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of limitation. Aforesaid submission of Shri Baghel is taken on record.

It is apparent from the IA No.5767/13 that same has been filed to substitute the legal representatives of respondent No.2 and 5 on record, so also to delete the name of respondent No.4 from the array of appeal memo. Accordingly, in such application three different prayer have been made but same has been filed with court fees of one prayer, as such the same has not been filed with proper Court fees. In the lack of proper court fees the same could not be considered and adjudicated on merits.

It is also apparent that no one is present on behalf of the appellant to assist the Court to consider the aforesaid both the applications for which one of the prayer out of three prayers.

Apart the aforesaid in the available circumstances, in the lack of any proceeding for setting aside the abatement till the extent of respondent No.2, 4 and 6, this appeal has already been abated. Hence, aforesaid both the IAs deserves to be dismissed on merits but in the absence of counsel of the appellant the same are dismissed for want of prosecution. Consequently, this appeal is held to be abated against respondent No.2, 4, and 5. Simultaneously, taking into consideration that after death of respondent No.6 on 5.1.2014, as submitted by counsel of respondent No.3, no steps have been taken on behalf of the appellant to substitute his legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of limitation, this appeal is also held to be abated against respondent No.6.

Now this matter be listed for final hearing between appellant and respondent No.3 & 7 either in the matter of January, 2015 or February, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.472/97.

3.11.2014.

Sole appellant is dead.

None for proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant mentioned in IA No.14026/08, although represented through duly engaged counsel.

Shri Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 stated in IA No.11083/04, appellant's application to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record.

The respondent No.2 being co-defendant with the appellant in the subordinate Court, his presence is not required. So, in such premises notice against such respondent is hereby dispensed with, if the same has not been served till today.

Having perused IA No.14026/08, an application filed on behalf of proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC on asking the counsel of legal representatives of respondent No.1 whether has he filed any reply of such application, on which he submits that he has no objection in allowing such IA. On perusing the same, I have found that the same has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased appellant within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, by allowing the IA the applicant's counsel is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the array of appeal memo within seven days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

I deem fit to consider IA No.11083/06 also. On taking up the same for consideration, I am apprised by the counsel of proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 that on earlier occasion this appeal was dismissed on account of non-compliance of peremptory order dated 26.4.2004, on which MCC No.943/06, was filed on behalf of the deceased appellant for restoration of the same and in such proceeding the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 were brought on record and by allowing such MCC vide dated 6.10.2006 this appeal has been restored. In continuation, he said that the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 have already come on record in M. C. C. No.943/06, hence fresh consideration is not required and only formal order to substitute the name of proposed persons is required.

On perusing the aforesaid IA, aforesaid submission of counsel of the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 is found correct. Consequently, this IA is allowed and the applicant's counsel is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the array of appeal memo within seven days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Subject to aforesaid compliance, this matter be listed in the week commencing 24.11.2014 for consideration of IA No.12959/07, an application filed on behalf of proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 for early hearing of this appeal on merits.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.14906-2014.

11.11.2014.

None for the applicant.

Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. In the absence of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head after a week.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.7185-14.

11.11.2014.

Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that although he is under the receipt of the case diary but it being voluminous he could not go through the same and seeks short adjournment to go through the same before making his submission.

The applicant's counsel also seeks short adjournment to verify the position whether the papers regarding treatment of the applicant during the period of temporary bail have been placed on record or not and if not, then to file the same.

Considering the prayer of the parties, case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 24.11.2014.

Learned P. L. is specifically directed to verify whether the requisite report of hand writing expert with respect of the disputed document has been received from the State hand writing expert or not and if the same is not received then same be called and produced before next hearing.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.9597-14/ 11.11.2014.

Shri Sazidullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Shri Mahendra Pateria, learned counsel for the complainant. At the request of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned, as he is not fully prepared with the matter.

Let this matter be placed under the same head in the week commencing 24.11.2014.

The case diary be produced on such date. The applicant's counsel is directed to show the original document of Ann. P.4 and P.4-A before the court on next hearing and if such documents are not available with him then explain the circumstance on affidavit before next hearing. Aforesaid direction has been given keeping in view the available circumstance in which the perusal of the original document is necessary to adjudicate this petition.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1062-05.

12.11.2014.

Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Sweta Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. The name of respondent No.3 has already been deleted from the array of the appeal memo.

The appellant's counsel is ready to argue the case on all pending IAs for which the case is listed today but the respondents counsel again seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days to file the reply of all pending IAs, failing which the right of the respondents to file the reply of all such applications shall stand closed automatically without further reference to the Bench and same shall be considered at the appropriate stage on the basis of available record.

Out of all pending IAs, IA No.8263/11, filed on behalf of the appellant under 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC and IA No.7893/11, appellant's application for taking subsequent events and documents on record shall be considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal. However, office is directed to place this matter in the week commencing 8.12.2014 for consideration of IA No.11822/08, appellant's application under Section 13 of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 to struck down the defence of the respondent in the matter and IA No.997/11, appellant's application for appropriate direction restraining the respondents from creating third party interest in the disputed premises.

As an interim measure till disposal of IA No.997/11, the parties are directed to maintain the status-quo with respect of nature and possession of the disputed shop and respondent is further directed not to transfer the possession of the disputed shop to any other person, unless the order of this Court.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.991/05.

12.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.8. Case is listed today for consideration of IA No. appellant's appellant's application for grant of stay, on which some interim order was passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide dated 6.11.2006 till next date of hearing.

Earlier this matter was listed for consideration of aforesaid IA but no one was present on behalf of the appellant, on which the case was adjourned pursuant to that it is listed today but on taking up the matter for hearing on the aforesaid IA no one is present to assist the Court to consider the same. In such premises, it appears that appellant is no more interested in prosecuting this IA, consequently the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.

It being an admitted appeal, office is directed to list this matter for final hearing in due course.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.913/05.

12.11.2014.

Shri Vibhudhandra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. The appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of three weeks either to comply the aforesaid earlier order or to file appropriate application in this regard, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.898/05.

12.11.2014.

Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is reportedly dead. Respondent No.3 is yet to be served.

Notice of IA No.8079/05, appellant's application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC issued to the legal representatives of respondent No.2 has been received back unserved for want of proper address. In such premises, office is directed that on payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post and correct address fresh notice of aforesaid IA, returnable within two months be issued to the to the legal representatives of respondent No.2.

Apart the aforesaid on payment of separate P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days fresh notice as directed vide order dated 19.5.2005, returnable within two months be issued to the respondent No.3, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.828/05.

12.11.2014.

Shri Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. The appellant's counsel seeks short adjournment on the ground of non-availability of arguing counsel Shri Bal Kishan Choudhary, as he being busy to look after his sick mother.

Considering his prayer, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.771/05.

12.11.2014.

Shri J. P. Dhimole, learned counsel for the appellant. Sole respondent is reportedly dead. Shri S. B. Agnihotri, learned counsel for proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent mentioned in IA No.13961/11.

Heard on aforesaid IA No.13961/11, appellant's application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record.

Such IA is filed within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of death of respondent No.1 and proposed person being legal representatives of deceased respondent, by allowing the IA the appellant's counsel is directed to carry out necessary correction in the array of appeal memo within ten days.

Subject to aforesaid compliance, office to proceed further.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.742/05.

12.11.2014.

Shri Hemant Chouhan learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 is reportedly dead. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2 & 3. Respondent No.1 is reportedly dead. On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days notice of IA No.9785/13, appellant's applications to substitute legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record, returnable by fixing a date within two months be issued to the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1, as mentioned in the aforesaid IA, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

The interim order passed earlier is continued till next hearing. C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1128-08.

12.11.2014.

Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. By referring the copy of the order dated 18.3.2008 passed in S. A. No.392/08, submits that in the identical circumstances such appeal was admitted and prayed to admit this appeal on the same substantial question of law. The copy of order referred by the appellant's counsel is taken on record.

Let this matter be placed under the same head along with the record of S. A. No.392/08 in the next week.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1126/08.

12.11.2014.

None for the appellants.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.5. In the absence of the appellants' counsel, I deem fit to extend one more opportunity to make the submission on admission. Hence, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 8.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1094/08.

12.11.2014.

None for the appellants.

In the absence of the appellants' counsel, I deem fit to extend one more opportunity to make the submission on admission. Hence, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 8.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1089/08.

12.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1. Earlier this matter was listed on 24.9.2008 but on taking up the matter no one was present on behalf of the appellant to prosecute this appeal and the same position is today that on taking up the matter no one is present to assist the Court to consider the question of admission. In such premises, it appears that appellant is no more interested in prosecuting this appeal, consequently the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1073-08 12.11.2014.

Shri Devesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1 & 2. Appellant's counsel submits that in pendency of this appeal the appellant No.2 has passed away and seeks for and is granted a period of one month to take appropriate steps to substitute his legal representatives on record.

Let this matter be listed after one month or in any case in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1068-08 12.11.2014.

None for the appellants.

In the absence of the appellants' counsel, I deem fit to extend one more opportunity to make the submission on admission. Hence, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 8.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1043-08 12.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Let the record of both the Courts below be requisitioned within one month and case be listed immediately thereafter or in any case in the month of January, 2015 for admission.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1040-08 12.11.2014.

Shri K. S. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of three weeks for further preparation of the case to make his submission on admission.

Let this matter be listed under the same head immediately after three weeks or in any case in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1034-08 12.11.2014.

None for the appellants.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.. In the absence of the appellants' counsel, I deem fit to extend one more opportunity to make the submission on admission. Hence, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 8.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1032-08 12.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.8. Earlier this matter was listed on 24.7.2008 and 24.10.2008 but on taking up the matter no one was present on behalf of the appellant to prosecute this appeal and the same position is today that on taking up the matter no one is present to assist the Court to consider the question of admission. In such premises, it appears that appellant is no more interested in prosecuting this appeal, consequently the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1021-08 12.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Let the record of both the Courts below be requisitioned within one month and case be listed immediately thereafter or in any case in the month of January, 2015 for admission.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1013-08 12.11.2014.

Shri Istiaq Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Let the record of both the Courts below be requisitioned within one month and case be listed immediately thereafter or in any case in the month of January, 2015 for admission.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.998-08 12.11.2014.

Shri K. S. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant. Let the record of both the Courts below be requisitioned within one month and case be listed immediately thereafter or in any case in the month of January, 2015 for admission.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.984-08 12.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

This appeal filed in the year 2008 is listed today for admission but one one is present to consider the question of admission.

I have carefully gone through the appeal memo and impugned decree. On bare perusal, it is found that initially the appellant has filed the money suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs.16,000/- along with the interest @ 12% p. a. so also for damages of Rs.25,000/- but after recording the evidence on appreciation of the same the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and on filing the appeal by the appellant herein the same was also dismissed, on which the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal and as per appeal memo this appeal has valued for Rs.16,000/- for the purpose of valuation and the Court fees is also paid accordingly.

In view of mandatory provision of Section 102 of CPC no second appeal is entertainable, if the same is valued below Rs.25,000/- and it is apparent that the valuation of present appeal is to be Rs.16,000/-. So, in such premises, this appeal being not entertainable under the aforesaid mandatory provision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed on the aforesaid technical ground.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.294-05 12.11.2014.

Shri Moharrum Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted two week's time either to cure the default or to file appropriate application in this regard, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.347-05 12.11.2014.

Ku. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted four week's time either to cure the default or to file appropriate application in this regard, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.452-05 12.11.2014.

Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the appellant. On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days notice of I. A. No.10742/05/14, an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, returnable within two months be issued to the respondents No.1(a) to 1 (f), 2 3 and 4 (a) to 4(e), failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge K.

S. A. No.613-05 12.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Swapnil Sogora, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2. It being an admitted appeal is listed today for appropriate order to comply the direction of the order dated 7.7.2014 directing the appellant to pay the requisite PF for issuing notices.

Aforesaid counsel of respondent No.1 and learned P. L. submits that they have taken the notice of admission as well as all pending IAs. In such premises no fresh PF is required in the matter. Consequently, office default is hereby ignored.

Counsel of respondent No.1 seeks for and is granted a period of three weeks to file reply of IA No.6838/05.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2098-05 13.11.2014.

Shri S. K. Tripathi learned counsel for the appellant. Shri D. S. Baghel, learned counsel for proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent mentioned in IA No.14181/11.

Counsel of the proposed legal representatives seeks short adjournment of fifteen days to file the reply of IA No.14181/11, 14183/11 and IA No.14184/11, appellant's application to substitute the legal representatives of respondent on record.

Considering his prayer as last indulgence the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2030-05.

13.11.2014.

Shri A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri R. S. Saini, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 6. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.7. IA No.2210/13 has already been allowed vide order dated 25.3.2013, hence office is directed not to list this IA of the respondent again for consideration in future.

IA No.2768/13, an application filed on behalf of the private respondent for taking annexed documents on record shall be considered at the time of final arguments of this appeal.

IA No.5119/13, appellant's application for modification of the order dated 25.3.2013 and also for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from any interference in the possession of the appellant over the disputed land in pendency of this appeal.

Having heard after perusing the order dated 25.3.2013, I have not found any circumstance in the matter on which such interim order requires any modification, as prayed by the appellant's counsel, hence till such extent IA is hereby dismissed while with respect of of remaining prayer for issuing interim injunction restraining the respondents from any interference in the possession of the appellant over the disputed land is concerned, this IA is disposed of with a direction to the parties to maintain the with respect of the nature, structure and possession of the property, as it exists today.

Having heard on IA No.3117/14, appellant's application for early hearing of this appeal on merits, for the reasons stated in it so also keeping in view that this appeal is pending for adjudication since 2005, the IA is allowed and office is directed to list this matter for final hearing before 31.10.2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge S. A. No.2015-05 13.11.2014.

Shri Pramod Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Sarvate, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2. Let the record of both the Courts below be requisitioned within one month and case be listed along with such record in the month of January, 2015 for admission.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1723-05.

13.11.2014.

Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. In the course of the arguments on admission in response of some query of the Court the appellant's counsel seeks for and is grated a period of fifteen days to file appropriate application for proposing some additional substantial question of law, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Subject to aforesaid compliance, this matter be placed under the same head in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1580-05.

13.11.2014.

Shri P. K. Sengar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for respondent No.2. The appellant's counsel seeks for and is grated a period of fifteen days to take appropriate steps on the question on which the case is listed today, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Subject to aforesaid compliance, this matter be placed in the week commencing 1.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1499-05 13.11.2014.

Shri K. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. It being an admitted appeal vide order dated 17.6.2014 is against listed for admission.

In view of such earlier order no further consideration on admission is required, consequently office is directed not to list this matter again for admission in future.

In the course of IA No.4531/05, appellant's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing interim injunction, the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this IA with liberty to file fresh application by mentioning all necessary facts with some modification in the prayer clause.

Considering his prayer without expressing any opinion on merits of matter IA is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1409-05.

13.11.2014.

Shri Shailendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.2, although represented. The appearing counsel of appellant seeks short adjournment on the ground of non-availability of arguing counsel Shri A. P. Singh, as he is busy before some other Bench of this court.

Considering his prayer, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1383/05.

13.11.2014.

Shri Naveen Thakur learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.9. Although this matter is listed today for final hearing in compliance of some earlier order dated 16.1.2014 but the appellant's counsel instead to argue seeks short adjournment on the ground of non-availability of arguing counsel Shri Ravi Ranjan Shrivastava as he has gone to District Court Katni in connection some other case.

Although such ground is not appealable but considering his difficulty the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.458-02 13.11.2014.

Shri K. S. Jha learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1, 3, 6, 9 & 11, although represented. Ku. Sudipta, learned counsel for respondent No.2, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 12.

Respondent No.7 is reportedly dead. Service report of notice of IA No.13734/13, 13735/13 and 13736/13, issued to the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.7 are still awaited.

Let the same be requisitioned within three weeks through reminder and placed with the record.

Apart the aforesaid, in the available circumstance it is directed that on payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days fresh notice of aforesaid all the IAs as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.7, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notices.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.940-00 13.11.2014.

Shri Neelesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amod Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is reportedly dead. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for respondent No.3. Service report of notice of IA No.6466/09, 6467/09 and 6468/09, issued to the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 are still awaited.

Let the same be requisitioned within three weeks through reminder and placed with the record.

Apart the aforesaid, in the available circumstance it is directed that on payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days fresh notice of aforesaid all the IAs as directed earlier, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notices.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.13572-14.

13.11.2014.

Shri Jayant Neekhra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as she is under apprehension of her arrest in connection with Crime No.259/14, registered at Police Station Kotwali District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34, 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

In the course of the arguments in response of some query of the Court instead to argue further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to surrender the applicant before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today with a further prayer that on arresting/ surrendering the applicant after carrying out the requisite formalities he be produced before the warrant Court within the period prescribed under the law with an additional prayer for appropriate direction to the Sessions Court that after producing the applicant before the warrant Magistrate and sending her to the judicial custody if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed then same be considered and adjudicated on some early date within some time bound schedule so also keeping in view the principle of parity, as husband of the present applicant situated in the similar circumstances of the case as the applicant, has been extended the benefit of bail under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. by this Court today in M. Cr. C. No.15744/14.

Considering the aforesaid prayer of the applicant's counsel the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to the applicant to surrender herself before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today and pursuant to it considering the oral prayer of the applicant's counsel the investigating/ arresting officer is directed that after carrying out the requisite formalities she be produced before the warrant Court within the period prescribed under the law and Sessions Court is also directed that if after producing the applicant before the warrant Magistrate and sending her to the judicial custody if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed then same be considered and adjudicated within three days keeping in view the principle of parity, as husband of the present applicant has been extended the benefit of bail today in M. Cr. C. No.15744/14.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.317-01.

14.11.2014.

Shri M. L. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri K. S. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on IA No.2547/12, this is an application filed on behalf of respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for issuing ad-interim injunction restraining the appellants from making any construction over the suit property during pendency of this appeal.

On perusing the earlier order of coordinate Bench dated 18.9.2002, it is apparent that on such date the parties were directed to maintain the status-quo with respect of the property in dispute till next date of hearing and even after admission of this appeal by framing the substantial question of law vide order dated 17.10.2002 such interim order was continued and the same is in existence till today. In such premises on asking the respondents counsel that in view of such interim order of status-quo by entertaining his subsequent IA how again temporary injunction could be granted against the appellant, on which after perusing such earlier order the respondents' counsel seeks permission to withdraw this IA as not pressed with liberty to file appropriate proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC.

Considering his prayer IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.13-01 14.11.2014.

Shri Istiaq Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 as well as for proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant No.2 mentioned in IA No.9804/14 filed on their behalf under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC.

Appellant No.2 is reportedly dead.

None for respondent 1(a) to 1 (h) and 2 to 6, although served. Inspite supplying the copies of IA No.9803/14, 9806/14 and 9804/14 to the counsel of the respondent No.1 (a) to 1 (h) long before in the month of July, 2014 till today no reply of any of the applications has been filed.

Heard on IA No.9803/14, an application filed on behalf of the proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant No.2 under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the IA No.9806/14, an application filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the abatement of the appeal cause on account of death of the deceased appellant No.2 and on non-taking the appropriate steps to substitute his legal representative on record with the prescribed period.

Having heard perused the same for the reasons stated in the IA, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay in filing the IA No.9806/14, the application for setting aside the aforesaid abatement of the appeal. Hence, the IA is allowed and the alleged delay is condoned.

After condoning the delay IA No.9806/14, an application of Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC for setting aside the aforesaid abatement is taken for consideration, for the reasons on which the aforesaid earlier IA is allowed on the same reasons this IA is also allowed and alleged abatement of appeal is hereby set aside.

After setting aside the abatement of appeal IA No.9804/14, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC is taken up for consideration, the proposed persons appear to be natural heirs and legal representatives of deceased appellant No.2, hence by allowing the IA proposed legal representatives are permitted to place their name at the place of deceased appellant No.2 in the array of appeal memo within fifteen days.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1025-00 14.11.2014.

Sole appellant is reportedly dead.

Shri Moharrum Ali, learned counsel for the proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant mentioned in IA No.4672/14 filed on their behalf under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC.

By referring the Vakalatnama on behalf of the proposed legal representatives of deceased appellant Shri Ali submits that he is going to file such Vakalatnama today in the Registry.

Subject to filing the Vakalatnama IA No.4672/14 an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC is taken up for consideration. The same appears to be filed withing the prescribed period of limitation from the date of death of sole appellant and the proposed persons appear to be natural heirs and legal representatives of deceased appellant, hence by allowing the IA proposed legal representatives are permitted to place their name at the place of deceased appellant in the array of appeal memo within fifteen days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.999-99.

14.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Jitendra Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is reportedly dead. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent No.3. Counsel of respondent No.1 submits that he does not want to file any reply of IA No.14, appellant's application to delete the name respondent No.2 from the array of appeal memo on account of his death.

Having perused the IA for the reasons stated in it the same is allowed and the appellant's counsel is directed to delete the name of respondent No.2 from the array of the appeal memo within seven working days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.766-14.

14.11.2014.

Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. In compliance of earlier direction the appellant has filed the copies of the order sheet drawn up by the appellate Court in the impugned first appeal as document No.7646/14. The same being relevant with the matter is taken on record.

On asking the counsel to make his submission on the question of maintainability of this appeal, on which instead to argue the case he seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days to file some application either for amendment in the appeal or to convert this appeal in to some other proceeding.

Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 8.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.1371-06.

14.11.2014.

Shri Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. This case is listed today along with all connected appeals filed by the co-convicted appellants for consideration of IA No.20859/14, 8th repeat application filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant's counsel after taking me through the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment by referring the order of the Apex Court dated 13.8.2007 passed in SLP (Cr.)5016/07, argued that on filing the SLP before the Apex court at the instance of the appellant the same was dismissed with observation that such dismissal will not preclude the petitioner from renewing his application for bail before this Court after a reasonable period.

It is noted that after passing the order by the Apex Court vide dated 13.8.2007 in SLP (Cr.)5016/07, IA No.8359/08 was filed on behalf of the appellant but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.8.2008 with observation that renew the prayer after six months. Thereafter IA No.2798/08 and IA No. 19857/10 were filed on behalf of the appellant but the same were also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.3.2009 and 8.7.2011 respectively and thereafter IA No.3323/12 was filed in this regard and the same was also dismissed on merits by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble Judge of such coordinate Division Benches have demitted the office, on which this matter is listed before us.

Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, we have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court as well as the aforesaid earlier orders whereby earlier applications of the appellant have been dismissed either as withdrawn or on merits, before or after passing the aforesaid order by the Apex Court. On perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we have found sufficient prima-facie case against the present appeal for causing the alleged fatal injury on the head of the deceased and we have not found any material change in the circumstances except the period suffered by the appellant in jail i. e. near about 13 years. In view of settled proposition mere long lodgment of the appellant in jail is not a sufficient ground for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail. In such premises, we have not found any material circumstance in the case for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, consequently IA is hereby dismissed.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                     (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                 Judge
k
                        Cr. A. No.685/2003.
14.11.2014.

This case is listed today as reference case along with the Criminal Appeal No.137106.

After passing the order in such other appeal, the case is adjourned with a direction to place always along with all connected criminal appeal.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                  (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                              Judge
k
                            Cr. A. No.1698-03.
14.11.2014.

Shri Bhoop Sibngh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Before beginning the arguments we are apprised by the counsel that this appeal is listed today along with Cr. A. No.95/02 but besides this two other co-convicted accused have also filed Cr. A. No.104/02 and 114/02, and prayed to hearing the arguments on IA No.18740/14, in the present matter after calling the record of aforesaid other appeals.

Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to place this matter under the same head along with the record of above mentioned criminal appeals in the next week.


      (U. C. Maheshwari)                    (Subhash Kakade)
            Judge                                Judge
k
                             M. Cr. C. No.
17.11.2014.

Shri learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since in connection with Crime No., registered at Police Station District for the offence punishable under Section of IPC.

In the course of the arguments in view , on making certain query, on which instead to argue further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on availability of some additional ground or after examining the material prosecution witnesses in the trial.

Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.16553-14.

17.11.2014.

Shri Jafar Khan learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. With permission of the Court the applicant's counsel corrected the description in the title of the petition whereby at the place of Bench Gwalior he has mentioned Principal Seat Jabalpur. Same is certified accordingly.

P. L. submit that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 16.9.2014 in connection with Crime No.245/14, registered at Police Station Udaypura District Raisen for the offence punishable under Section 399, 400, 402 of IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

In the course of the arguments the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage after filing the charge sheet in the matter.

Considering his prayer without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.16757-14.

17.11.2014.

Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submit that inspite his intimation he is under the receipt of case diary and seeks short adjournment to call and produce the same.

Learned counsel of the applicant submits that charge sheet has been filed and on the basis of it, this petition could be considered and adjudicated without calling the case diary, on which with the consent of the parties the case is taken up for consideration.

Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 218.2014 in connection with Crime No.114/14, registered at Police Station Mauganj District Rewa for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M. P. Excise Act.

Having heard keeping in view the arguments advanced after perusing the case diary taking into consideration that charge sheet has been filed, case is triable by JMFC and trial will take on its own time, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is allowed.

It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand), along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Lalta Tiwari shall be released on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial court. His single non-appearance before the trial court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.16890-14.

17.11.2014.

Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 8.8.2014 in connection with Crime No.168/14. registered at Police Station Kaymore District Katni for the offence punishable under Section 376, 576 of IPC and 5 (tha) (dha) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

At the outset the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh application by mentioning additional facts and annexing the copy of the deposition of the prosecutrix, which has already been recorded in trial.

Considering his prayer without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.16940-14.

17.11.2014.

Shri Aseem Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 5.9.2014 in connection with Crime No.295/14, registered at Police Station Lalbarra Balaghat for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act.

In the course of the arguments in view of memorandum of present applicant as well as other co-accused in whose possession the alleged contraband substance the Ganja was recovered in huge quantity, on making certain query the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage after examining the Panch witnesses of memorandum of the applicant and other co-accused in whose possession the alleged contraband substance the Ganja was recovered, in the trial.

Considering his prayer without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.14214-14 18.11.2014.

Shri Pramendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail as he is in custody since 2014 in connection with Crime No.169/14, registered at Police Station Barhi District Katni for the offence punishable under Section 392, 458, 398, 397 of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act.

Applicant's counsel after taking me through the petition, rejection order of the Sessions Court and deposition of victim Smt. Asha Yadav recorded in the trial argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter when he is not actual culprit of the incident. In continuation he further said that she did not identify the applicant as culprit of the incident while recording the deposition and prayed for grant of bail to the applicant by allowing this petition.

Aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned P. L. saying that looking to the nature of offence and manner in which it was committed the application does not deserve for grant of bail. However, he fairly conceded that on recording the deposition victim Smt. Asha Yadav did not identify the applicant as culprit of incident.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the case diary along with the recorded deposition of victim, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is allowed.

It directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, applicant Sheikh Saddam Hussain @ Babloo shall be released on bail with a direction to appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial court. His single non-appearance before the trial court shall lead to automatic dismissal of this bail order.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.14134-14 18.11.2014.

Shri N. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. State counsel submit that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 26.4.2014 in connection with Crime No.420/13, registered at Police Station Kolar Road, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC.

In the course of the arguments in response of some query of the Court the applicant's counsel instead to argue further seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on availability of some additional grounds.

Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.11272-14.

18.11.2014.

None for the applicant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of the case diary.

Earlier this matter was listed on 27.10.2014 but on taking up the same no one was present to prosecute this petition and same position is today, that on taking up the matter no one is present on behalf of the applicant. In such premises it appears that applicant is no more interested in prosecuting this petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.8661-14.

18.11.2014.

Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Heard on IA No.20573-14, an application filed on behalf of the application permitting him to prosecute this petition through aforesaid appearing counsel Shri Vikas Sharma instead to earlier engaged counsel Shri P. C. Paliwal and his associates.

Smt. Sushila Paliwal an associates of Shri P. C. Paliwal Advocate is present in the Court on asking whether she has any objection in allowing this IA, on which she submits that she has no objection. In such premises, by allowing the IA applicant is permitted to prosecute this petition through appearing counsel Shri Vikas Sharma and his associates and office is directed to circulate the name of Shri Vikas Sharma and his associates in the cause list in future.

Now this matter be listed for admission as well as for final disposal in the next week.

Learned P. L. is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17920-14 18.11.2014.

Smt. Sudha Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.203/14, registered at Police Station Badamalhara District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Section 323, 294, 327 of IPC.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments advanced after perusing the case diary taking into consideration the nature of evidence collected by the investigation agency, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this case appears to be a fit case for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, thus petition is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants or any of them in connection of above mentioned crime on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting/ investigating officer by the applicant, he shall be released on bail. Such release of the applicants shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr. P. C.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17222-14.

18.11.2014.

Shri L. N. Sakle, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

This second repeat petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.105/2014, registered at P. S. Sirali District Harda, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.

It is noted that his earlier petition filed in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7.10.2014 by extending a liberty to the applicant to file fresh petition after ascertaining the age of the prosecutrix so also annexing necessary documents. It is apparent that this petition is preferred under such liberty along with the joint affidavit of the applicant and complainant so also the affidavit of the prosecutrix sworn on 8.7.2014 and 28.6.2014 respectively. According to such affidavit prosecutrix was shown to be age of the 19 years while the applicant has been shown to be the age of 21 years.

The applicant's counsel by referring some documents said that after solemnization of marriage since last six months they were residing together as husband and wife and according to his information till today ossification test has not not been carried out by the investigation agency, so mere on the basis of mark-sheet or other document collected by the investigation agency the age of the prosecutrix could not be treated to below 18 years and he also said that if the anticipatory bail is not granted to the applicant then matrimonial life of the applicant may be destroyed and prayed for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand the learned P. L. with the assistant of the case diary argued that as per mark sheet of the prosecutrix her date of birth is 31.10.1996 and according to Adhar Card she born in the year 1998 and in such premises on the date of the incident i. e. 30.4.2014 she was blow 18 years and prayed for dismissal of this petition. However, in response of query of the Court he fairly said that as per case diary ossification test of the prosecutrix has not been carried out till today to ascertain her age.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments advanced after perusing the case diary firstly I am of the considered view that if there is sufficient ground to reconsider the matter for anticipatory bail then same could be reconsidered, as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Imratlal Vishwakarma Vs. State of M. P. reported 1996 JLJ 642, hence this matter is being decided on merits. In view of submission made by the applicant's counsel, according to which applicant and prosecutrix are residing as husband and wife after solemnization of marriage and taking into consideration that in last six months no ossification test has been carried out to ascertain her age and the nature of evidence collected by the investigation agency, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this case appears to be a fit case for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, thus petition is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants or any of them in connection of above mentioned crime on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting/ investigating officer by the applicant, he shall be released on bail. Such release of the applicant shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr. P. C.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.15610/14.

18.11.2014.

Shri Pradeep Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for applicant. Shri Akhil Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P.L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.958/2014, registered at P. S. Betul, for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC.

Initially after taking me through the petition and rejection order of the Sessions Court so also the order dated 15.10.2014 passed in identical case in M. Cr. C. No.15419/14, whereby the applicant has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail in such case, the applicant is also entitled for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail while on the other hand in view of information given by the P. L. from the case diary that as many as ten cases of identical nature for the aforesaid offences relating to the Kisan Credit Card has been registered against the present applicant. In view of such information of P. L. on making certain query that on the basis of the aforesaid order passed by the coordinate Bench extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant how he is entitled to get the same benefit in other registered cases when there is series of cases, according to which he has committed the offence with various persons and in the present case sufficient evidence is available against the applicant and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary otherwise investigation of the case could not be completed, on which instead to argue further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed Considering his prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.2721-13 18.11.2014.

Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Heard on the question of admission.

Admit.

Learned P. L. has taken notice of this admission, hence no further notice is required.

The appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of fifteen days for further preparation of the matter to make his submission on IA No.23565/13, appellant's application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.

Let this matter be listed along with Cr. A. No.2173/13 for consideration of aforesaid IA after fifteen days.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.2191-13 18.11.2014.

Shri Mohan Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. At the request of the appellant's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to list under the same bhead along with Cr. A. No.2173/13 after fifteen days.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.2173-13 18.11.2014.

Shri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.27536/13, appellant's repeat application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail but the appellant's counsel seeks short adjournment for further preparation of the matter.

Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head along with all connected appeals after fifteen days.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.1893-13 18.11.2014.

Shri S. K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Shri Sudeep Patel, learned counsel for objector/ prosecutrix. In the course of the arguments on IA No.17794/13, appellant's application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail in response of some query of the Court the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this IA as not pressed at this stage with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on availability of some additional grounds or after facing some part of the awarded jail sentence.

Considering aforesaid prayer, IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.919-12 18.11.2014.

Shri S. K. Gangrade, learned counsel for the the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Shri Sudeep Patel, learned counsel for objector/ prosecutrix. At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.15645/13, appellant's application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail in response of some query of the Court as not pressed at this stage with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on availability of some additional grounds or after facing some part of the awarded jail sentence.

Considering aforesaid prayer, IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty aforesaid.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.12037-14 19.11.2014.

Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned counsel for the applicant by referring original application along with the documents seeks permission to file the same in the Registry during the course of the day.

After perusing the same the counsel is permitted to file the same in the Registry today.

On asking the counsel whether he is ready to argue the case on merits today, on which he seeks short adjournment on the ground of non-availability of arguing counsel Shri Narendra Nikhare, as he is busy before some other Bench of this court.

Considering his difficulty, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 1.12.2014.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.9405-14 19.11.2014.

Ku. Savita Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Shri Arun Nema, learned counsel for the objector Prahlad Singh.

Heard.

On behalf of the applicant this second repeat petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant, as he is in custody since 6.10.2013 in connection of Crime No.275/13, registered at P. S. Themi Distt. Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 and 506 (B) of IPC.

It is noted that his earlier application in this regard was dismissed on merits vide order dated 17.2.2014 in M. Cr. C. No.385/14.

Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view the arguments after perusing the papers placed on record as well as case diary, I have not found any material change in the circumstances subsequent to aforesaid earlier dismissal of the petition on merits, consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed.

However, in the available circumstances, the trial Court is directed to take an endeavor to expedite the trial and conclude the same on or before 28th of February, 2015 under intimation to this Court.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.7446-14 19.11.2014.

Shri Abhay Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri A. P. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2. Considering the oral prayer of the counsel of respondent No.1, the applicant's counsel is directed to supply him an additional set of annexed document within two days unable his mot defend the matter.

Let this matter be listed under the same head in the week commencing 1.12.2014.

Learned P. L. specifically directed to call and produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17960-14.

19.11.2014.

Shri R. S. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of her arrest in connection with Crime No.215/14, registered at Police Station Jaithari District Anuppur for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354-A, 294, 506 & 323 of IPC.

The applicant's counsel after taking me through the rejection order of the Sessions Court as well as the FIR lodged by the applicant against Bahadur Rathore husband of the prosecutrix on 14.10.2014 at 3.30 p. m. at the Police Station Jaithari, argued that a day before husband of the prosecutrix was illegally cutting the grass from the boundaries of the applicant's field, on asking the husband of the prosecutrix in this regard some exchange of abuses had taken place and in continuation of such incident the applicant was subjected to blow of Hasiya, sharp edged weapon by which the applicant sustained the injury near right eye, on which the applicant has lodged the aforesaid FIR, as Crime No.214/14 and subsequent to that to create the defence against the aforesaid report by fabricating false story the impugned FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix and in such premises he prayed that taking into consideration enmity factor of aforesaid incident and the circumstance that earlier FIR was lodged by the applicant against the husband of the prosecutrix, the applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

On the other hand learned P. L. with the assistance of the case diary said that in view of averments of the FIR and interrogatory statements of the prosecutrix the applicant do not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail and prayed for dismissal of this petition. But he has not disputed the aforesaid submission of the applicant's counsel that a day earlier the applicant had lodged the report immediately after happening the alleged incident with the applicant and husband of the prosecutrix while FIR was lodged on subsequent day near about after more than 15 hours from the alleged incident.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments advanced after perusing the case diary as well as the aforesaid report lodged by the applicant a day before from lodging the report by the prosecutrix with respect of the incident which had taken place on the earlier day and enmity factor between the parties on account of cutting the grass from the boundaries of the applicant's field by the husband of the prosecutrix, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is allowed and applicant is extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants or any of them in connection of above mentioned crime on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting/ investigating officer by the applicant, he shall be released on bail. Such release of the applicant shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr. P. C.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17488-14.

19.11.2014.

Shri Nitit Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of her arrest in connection with Crime No.406/14, registered at Police Station Kotwali District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 307, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.

In the course of the arguments in view of the averments of FIR as well as interrogatory statements of victim on making some query by the Court instead to argue further the applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to surrender the applicant before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today with a further prayer that on arresting/ surrendering the applicant after carrying out the requisite formalities he be produced before the warrant Court within the period prescribed under the law with an additional prayer for appropriate direction to the Sessions Court that after producing the applicant before the warrant Magistrate and sending him to the judicial custody if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed then same be considered and adjudicated on some early date within some time bound schedule.

Considering the aforesaid prayer of the applicant's counsel the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to the applicant to surrender himself before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today and pursuant to it considering the oral prayer of the applicant's counsel the investigating/ arresting officer is directed that after carrying out the requisite formalities he be produced before the warrant Court within the period prescribed under the law and Sessions Court is also directed that if after producing the applicant before the warrant Magistrate and sending him to the judicial custody if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed then same be considered and adjudicated within two days in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17038-14.

19.11.2014.

Shri Narayan Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under receipt of case diary. Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as she is under apprehension of her arrest in connection with Crime No.647/14, registered at Police Station Panagar for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of IPC.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments advanced by the applicant's counsel as well as of the learned P. L. with the assistance of case diary and Shri Neeraj Ashar Advocate of the complainant after perusing the case diary in the available fact and circumstances as appeared from the case diary so also the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is allowed and applicant is extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection of above mentioned crime on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting/ investigating officer by the applicant, he shall be released on bail. Such release of the applicant shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr. P. C.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17037-14.

19.11.2014.

Shri Narayan Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.647/14, registered at Police Station Panagar for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 34 of IPC.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments advanced by the applicants' counsel as well as of the learned P. L. with the assistance of case diary and Shri Neeraj Ashar Advocate of the complainant after perusing the case diary in the available fact and circumstances as appeared from the case diary so also the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is allowed and applicants are extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection of above mentioned crime on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting/ investigating officer by the applicants, they shall be released on bail. Such release of the applicants shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr. P. C.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17085-14.

20.11.2014.

Shri Adarshmuni Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.545/14, registered at Police Station Samnapur District Dindori for the offence punishable under Section 354, 452, 323 of IPC and 3(1)(ii) of S. C. S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.

In the course of the arguments in the available circumstances as appeared from the case diary in view of the mandatory provision of Section 18 of S. C. S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. on making some query by the Court instead to argue further the Senior counsel of the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to surrender the applicant before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today with a further prayer that on arresting/ surrendering the applicant after carrying out the requisite formalities he be produced before the Special Court on the same day with an additional prayer for appropriate direction to such Court that on producing the applicant before such Court if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed on behalf of the applicant then same be considered and adjudicated on same date.

Considering the aforesaid prayer of the applicant's counsel the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to the applicant to surrender himself before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today and pursuant to it considering the oral prayer of the applicant's counsel the investigating/ arresting officer is directed that on surrendering/ arresting the applicant after carrying out the requisite formalities he be produced before the Special Court on the same day and such Court is also directed that if after producing the applicant before sending him to the judicial custody if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed on his behalf then same be considered and adjudicated on the same day in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law keeping in view the observation made in earlier part of this order.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.14906-14 20.11.2014.

None for the applicant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. In the absence of the applicant's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head after a week.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.271-14 20.11.2014.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the appellant. Shri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Under execution of bailable warrant issued inn compliance of the order dated 17.9.2014, the respondents are present in person, identified by their counsel.

After making their presence on the record they are directed to appear before the Court of JMFC Kotma district Anuppur firstly on 22.1.2015 and also on such other dates as are fixed by such Court in this regard till disposal of this appeal.

Let JMFC, Kotma be intimated in this regard. The respondents are also directed to produce the certified copy of this order in the Court of JMFC Kotma on or before aforesaid date.

Apart the aforesaid the respondents are also directed to furnish their personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the such Court within thirty days with an undertaking that they shall remain represent before such Court on each and every dates as are fixed by such Court in this regard till disposal of this appeal.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. R. No.212-12 20.11.2014.

Shri Pawan goojar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. The applicant's counsel seeks short adjournment with a fix date to keep present the applicant before the Court.

Let this matter be listed on 16.12.2014 for appearance of the applicant.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.1847-11.

20.11.2014.

Shri Abhinav Dubye, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. In compliance of earlier order appellant No.2 Pillu @ Shashikant is present in person, identified by his counsel.

Heard on I. A. No.14336/14, appellants application for giving them exemption from personal appearance in the Registry of this Court.

For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and instead the Registry the appellants are directed to appear in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Hoshangabad, firstly on 10.12.2014 and on all- subsequent dates, as are given by that court till the disposal of this appeal.

Let Chief Judicial Magistrate Hoshangabad be intimated in this regard.

The respondents are also directed to produce the certified copy of this order in the Court of CJM Hoshangabad on or before aforesaid date.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. R. No.471-11 20.11.2014.

Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Bailable warrant issued against the appellant in compliance of the order dated 17.9.2014 is received back unserved with a report that inspite making various efforts the warrantee could not be traced out. In such premises, office is directed to secure the presence of appellant before this Court by issuing non-bailable warrant against him. Same be made returnable by fixing a date in the month of March, 2015.

Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid non-bailable warrant.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.471-11 20.11.2014.

Shri Vinay Garg, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Bailable warrant issued against the appellant in compliance of the order dated 11.8.2014 is received back unserved with a report that warrantee has passed away on 30.6.2009. A photo copy of death certificate is also annexed with the report of P. S. Obedullahganj District Raisen.

In view of death of sole appellant this appeal has become abated. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed as abated.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17345-14.

20.11.2014.

Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.12/14, registered at Police Station AJK Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Section 341, 294, 506(II)/34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of S. C. S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.

In the course of the arguments in the available circumstances as appeared from the case diary in view of the mandatory provision of Section 18 of S. C. S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. on making some query by the Court instead to argue further the counsel of the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to surrender the applicants before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today with a further prayer that on arresting/ surrendering the applicants after carrying out the requisite formalities they be produced before the Special Court on the same day with an additional prayer for appropriate direction to such Court that on producing the applicants before such Court if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed on behalf of the applicants then same be considered and adjudicated on same date.

Considering the aforesaid prayer of the applicant's counsel the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to the applicants to surrender themselves before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today and pursuant to it considering the oral prayer of the applicants' counsel the investigating/ arresting officer is directed that on surrendering/ arresting the applicants after carrying out the requisite formalities they be produced before the Special Court on the same day and such Court is also directed that if after producing the applicants before sending him to the judicial custody if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed on their behalf then same be considered and adjudicated on the same day in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law keeping in view the observation made in earlier part of this order.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.16344-14.

20.11.2014.

Shri R. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. In the earlier hours of the day in response of some query of the Court the applicant has prayed to keep the matter as pass over. Pursuant to it after lunch session on taking up the matter learned counsel for the applicant by referring the some documents seeks permission to file such documents along with IA in the Registry. After perusing the same the applicant's counsel is permitted to file the same in the Registry today.

Let this matter be listed on 24.11.2014 along with IA and documents.

Learned counsel of the applicant is directed to file the bye- laws of the concerning society on or before next hearing.

Learned P. L. is directed to produce the case diary on such date.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. A. No.1087-07.

21.11.2014.

Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellants. None for the respondent No.1 and 3, although served. The appellants' counsel submits that by submitting the requisite PF he has cured the default on 26.9.2014.

Office to verify and subject to such verification issue fresh notice to the respondent No.2, as directed earlier. Same be made returnable in the month of February, 2015.

Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notice.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. A. No.937/07.

21.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

On payment of P. F. along with requisite of registered post within five working days the notice as directed vide order dated 5.8.2013, returnable by fixing a date in the month of February, 2015 be issued to the respondents, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Case be listed along with M. A. No.934/07, on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notice.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. A. No.934-07.

21.11.2014.

Nonel for the appellant.

It being an admitted appeal vide order dated 5.8.2013 is listed again for admission.

In view of earlier admission, office is directed not to list this matter again for admission in future.

On payment of P. F. along with requisite of registered post within five working days the notice as directed vide order dated 5.8.2013, returnable by fixing a date in the month of February, 2015 be issued to the respondents, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Case be listed along with M. A. No.937/07, on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notice.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. A. No.1118-05 21.11.2014.

Shri Rakesh Khare, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 and 4, although served. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is still unserved.

Considering the prayer of the appellants' counsel that respondent No.3 was proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal and this appeal can be adjudicated effectively only in presence of the appellant respondent No.1, 2 and 4, hence notice against respondent No.3 is hereby dispensed with.

Let this matter be listed for final hearing in due course.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. A. No.1034-05 21.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri P. K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.4, although served. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.5.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.2750-11.

24.11.2014.

Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.22813/13, appellant's repeat application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as withdrawn and not pressed.

Considering his prayer IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                           (R. S. Jha)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2746-11
24.11.2014.

Shri Sidharth Dattt, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. This case is listed as reference along with Criminal Appeal No.2750/11. After passing the order on such case, this case is adjourned with a direction to place this case always with aforesaid Cr. A. No.2750/11.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                           (R. S. Jha)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.287-11.
24.11.2014.
      None for the appellant.

Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. In the absence of the appellant's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to place this matter under the same head along with Cr. A. No.78/2011 after fifteen days.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                           (R. S. Jha)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                            Cr. A. No.78-11
24.11.2014.

Shri Sidharth Dattt, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. This case is listed as reference along with Criminal Appeal No.287/11. After passing the order on such case, this case is adjourned with a direction to place this case always with aforesaid Cr. A. No.287/11.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                           (R. S. Jha)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2294-10.
24.11.2014.

Shri Pradeep Naveria, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. Before beginning the arguments on IA No.6066/14, appellants' counsel apprised us that an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of co-appellant has been considered and adjudicated by coordinate Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit Singh and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav, vide order dated 9.10.2014 and as per newly implemented roster system the subsequent application of the co- appellant can be adjudicated by the same Bench.

In view of such submission, office is directed to verify the position and case be listed under the same head before the appropriate Bench in the next week.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                           (R. S. Jha)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                             W. P. No.7639-14.
24.11.2014.

Shri Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1 and 5.

Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent No.2 to 4, 6, and 7.

At the outset the petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdrawn this petition as not pressed.

Considering such prayer petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed without extending any liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.

         (U. C. Maheshwari)                           (R. S. Jha)
               Judge                                    Judge
k
                               Cr. A. No.439-09
24.11.2014.

Name of the appellant No.1 has already been deleted on account of his death.

Shri Sidharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant No.2. Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. In compliance of earlier direction the requisite report regarding health condition of the appellant No.2 has been received along with covering letter dated 17.11.2014, from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Satna, according to which the appellant is well controlled on hypertension and no active cardiac problem. After perusing such report the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.19743/14, filed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail for the purpose of taking the treatment out side of the jail.

Considering his prayer IA is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed.

Considering the oral prayer of the appellant's counsel, he is extended a liberty to file appropriate application for early hearing of this appeal. Same shall be considered keeping in view that appeal is pending the year 2009 for adjudication.

        (U. C. Maheshwari)                             (R. S. Jha)
              Judge                                      Judge
k
                          Cr. A. No.2122-05
24.11.2014.

Shri Neelesh Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri S. S. Bisen, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. At the outset the appellant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw IA No.7635/14 filed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2 for temporary period as become infructuous, as the alleged function has already been carried out in the family.

Considering his prayer IA is hereby dismissed as become infructuous and withdrawn.

      (U. C. Maheshwari)                           (R. S. Jha)
            Judge                                    Judge
k
                        M. Cr. C. No.8661-14
25.11.2014.

Shri Vikash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. I am apprised by the applicant's counsel that next date for recording the evidence of remaining witnesses before the trial court is 1st of December to 3rd of December, 2014. I deem fit to hear this petition after recording the deposition of witnesses on such date also. Hence, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 8.12.2014.

Meanwhile the applicant's counsel is directed to file the certified copy of the entire order sheets drawn up by the trial Court.

Case diary be produced on such date.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.8661-14 25.11.2014.

Shri Vikash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. I am apprised by the applicant's counsel that next date for recording the evidence of remaining witnesses before the trial court is 1st of December to 3rd of December, 2014. I deem fit to hear this petition after recording the deposition of witnesses on such date also. Hence, the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the week commencing 8.12.2014.

Meanwhile the applicant's counsel is directed to file the certified copy of the entire order sheets drawn up by the trial Court.

Case diary be produced on such date.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.16344-14.

25.11.2014.

Shri R. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned counsel of the applicant is directed to file the photo copy of the entire bye-laws of the concerning society within three days and this matter be listed under the same head on 1.12.2014.

Learned P. L. is directed to produce the case diary on such date.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17584-14.

25.11.2014.

Shri Narendra Jain, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the objector seeks permission to withdraw his power filed on behalf of the complainant Pankaj Jain saying that that the complainant has taken away the brief from his office.

Considering his prayer he is permitted to withdraw from this case. However, objections of the complainant may be considered at the appropriate stage if the same are necessary.

Learned P. L. submits that he is under the receipt of case diary.

Heard.

This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.406/14, registered at Police Station Kotwali District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 307, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.

In the course of the arguments in view of the averments of FIR as well as interrogatory statements of victim on making some query by the Court instead to argue further the applicants counsel saying that come compromise had taken place between the parties seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to surrender the applicants before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today with a further prayer that on arresting/ surrendering the applicants after carrying out the requisite formalities they be produced before the warrant Court within the period prescribed under the law with an additional prayer for appropriate direction to the Sessions Court that after producing the applicants before the warrant Magistrate and sending them to the judicial custody if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed on their behalf then same be considered and adjudicated on some early date within some time bound schedule.

Considering the aforesaid prayer of the applicants' counsel the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty to the applicants to surrender themselves before the investigating officer within fifteen days from today and pursuant to it the investigating/ arresting officer is directed that after carrying out the requisite formalities they be produced before the warrant Court within the period prescribed under the law and Sessions Court is also directed that if after producing the applicant before the warrant Magistrate and sending him to the judicial custody if any application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. is filed then same be considered and adjudicated within two days taking into consideration the act attributed by the present applicants in the alleged incident so also in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.587-01.

25.11.2014.

Shri S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal has already been admitted by framing substantial question of law vide order dated 8.11.2001. Pursuant to it, office is directed to list this matter for final hearing in due course.

Office is specifically directed not to list this matter for admission in future.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.274-01 25.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Earlier this case was listed on 17.11.2014 before the coordinate Bench of this Court but on taking up the matter for hearing no one was present, on which the case was adjourned with a direction that if the appellant does not appear on the next date then the appeal shall be dismissed for want of prosecution. But the same position is today that on taking up the matter no one is present to prosecute this appeal. In such premises, it appears that the appellant is no more interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17489-14 25.11.2014.

None for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Let the default raised by the office be cured within five working day, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17265-14 25.11.2014.

None for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. is under receipt of the case diary and submits that the applicant has been arrested and this petition has become infructuous.

This matter is listed today for appropriate order on the question of default raised by the office, according to such default the applicant has come to this Court directly without approaching the Sessions Court. So, firstly this petition is not entertainable on technical grounds and secondly the applicant is arrested in pendency of this petition consequently, the same has become infructuous.

In the aforesaid premises, this petition is hereby dismissed on the aforesaid technical ground as well as become infructuous.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.17105-14 25.11.2014.

Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned P. L. is under receipt of the case diary. Applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition saying that in pendency of this petition the applicant has been arrested and this petition has become infructuous.

In the aforesaid premises, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and become infructuous.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.16538-14 25.11.2014.

None for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Let the default raised by the office be cured within five working day, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.13940-14 25.11.2014.

Instead to earlier engaged counsel Shri Anirudra Pratap Singh Advocate has given his appearance on behalf of the applicant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Having heard on IA No.20953/14, applicant's application permitting him to prosecute this petition through appearing counsel and his associates, for the reasons stated in it IA is allowed and Shri Anirudra Pratap Singh and his associates are permitted to prosecute this petition on behalf of the applicant and office is directed to circulate the name of Shri Anirudra Pratap Singh Advocate and his associates in daily cause list in future.

Now this matter be listed for admission and subject to availability of time for final disposal in the week commencing 1.12.2014.

Case diary be produced on the next date of hearing.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k M. Cr. C. No.11337-14 25.11.2014.

Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has cured the default on 9.9.2014.

Office is directed to verify and subject to such verification this matter be listed on 1.12.2014.

Case diary be produced on such date.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1124-14 25.11.2014.

Shri K. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.2. On payment of P. F. along with requisites of registered post within seven days notice of I. A. No.16039/14, an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the same is filed barred time as well as of IA No.16038/14, under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, returnable by fixing a date in the month of January, 2015 be issued to the respondent No.1, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notice.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.46-14.

25.11.2014.

Shri A. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri S. P. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (a) and 1(b).

Respondent No.2 (A) and respondent No.10 are reportedly dead.

Respondent No.2 (b) to 2 (f), 5, 12 (a) (12 (b) are still unserved.

Shri D. P. Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and 4. None for respondent No.2 (c) to 2 (g), 3, 4, 6 to 9, 11, 13, 16 and 18 although served.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.17. Appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of three weeks to take appropriate steps to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. No.2 (A) and respondent No.10 on record, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Subject to aforesaid compliance this matter be listed in the first week of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.114-06 26.11.2014.

Shri Abhay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. None for respondent No.1 to 16, 17(c) and 22. Respondent No.17 (a) 17 (b), 17 (c), 18, 19, 23 (c) and 23 (d) are reportedly dead.

According to service report of notice issued to respondent No.20, 23 (a) and 23 (b) have refused to take the notice. In such premises, it is held that inspite service of notice on them no one is present to defend the matter.

Respondent No.17 (d), 21 and 23 (E) are still unserved. Issue notice, as directed earlier to the unserved respondent 17

(d), 21 and 23 (E).

Notice of IA No.119/12, 117/12, 120/12, appellants' applications to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.23 (c) on record, be issued to the proposed legal representatives of such deceased respondent mentioned in such IAs.

Notice of IA No.123/12, 124/12, 126/12, appellants' applications to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.18 on record, be issued to the proposed legal representatives of such deceased respondent mentioned in such IAs.

Notice of IA No.115/12, 116/12, 118/12, appellants' applications to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.19 on record, be issued to the proposed legal representatives of such deceased respondent mentioned in such IAs.

Apart the aforesaid, notice of IA No.106/12, 108/12, 109/12, appellants' applications to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.23 (D) on record, be issued to the proposed legal representatives of such deceased respondent mentioned in such IAs.

All the aforesaid notices be made returnable by fixing a date in the month of February, 2015.

Necessary steps along with requisites of registered post with respect of aforesaid all the notices be taken within fifteen days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Heard on IA No.110/12, appellants' application for deleting the name of respondent No.17 (a) Smt. Bisti, from the array of appeal memo.

As per averments of such IA the natural heirs and legal representatives, her sons and daughters are already on record as respondent No.17 (b), 17(c) and 17 (d) and in such premises, there is no necessity to substitute her other legal representatives on record.

Considering such averments of the IA and keeping in view that her legal representatives are already on record, although in other capacity, IA is allowed and appellants' are permitted to delete the name of respondent No.17 (a) from the array of appeal memo within fifteen days.

Case be listed on the date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notices.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2569-05.

26.11.2014.

Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 (a) to a(g), although represented through duly engaged counsel.

In the available circumstances the presence of the respondent No.2 is not required.

This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.795/09, an applicationof the respondent No.1 (a) and 1 (b) for vacating the interim stay granted vide dated 23.11.2005.

It is noted that such IA is still pending for consideration till today.

I am apprised by the appellant's counsel that on earlier occasion on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 23.11.2005, the appeal was dismissed and the same was restored vide order dated 26.10.2010 passed in M. C. C. No.1639/09 but between the aforesaid period the impugned decree of eviction was executed by the respondents against the appellants and possession of the disputed premises has been taken by respondent No.1 (a) to 1(g). So at present the appellants are not in possession of the disputed premises and therefore, no stay is required at this stage in the matter and prayed to dismiss the aforesaid IA.

I am of the considered view that subject to admission, final judgment and decree the appellant may be entitled to restore the possession under the provision of Section 144 of CPC but at present such earlier ex-parte stay order come to an end. In such premises, aforesaid IA filed on behalf of the respondent does not require any order on merits or in any case deserves to be dismissed. However, in the absence of the counsel of the respondent same is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Let this matter be listed for admission in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2369-05 26.11.2014.

Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri K. S. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of three weeks to file the reply of IA No.7256/14, appellant's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for issuing temporary injunction restraining the respondents from making use of the passage in any manner and he be also restrained from making any construction in the same.

Let this matter be listed in the second week of January, 2015. The interim order passed on 21.10.2005 is hereby continued till next hearing.

Apart the aforesaid interim order, as an interim measure the parties are also directed to maintain the status-quo with respect of the disputed passage and same be not blocked by making any construction till the next date of hearing.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k F. A. No.59/05.

26.11.2014.

Shri R. K. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Mohd. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (i) to 1

(iii).

Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No. 1(iv). None for other respondents.

Counsel of respondent No.1 (iv) seeks short adjournment to examine some more legal position before making submission on IA No.14241/13, an application for recalling the order dated 9.5.2011.

Let this matter be listed in the first week of January, 2015 for consideration of aforesaid IA.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1308-04.

26.11.2014.

This case is listed today as reference case with F. A. No.282/09. After passing the order in such appeal this case is adjourned with a direction to place always with the aforesaid first appeal.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k F. A. No.282-09.

26.11.2014.

Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Hitendra Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondent.

Having heard on IA No.6932/13, appellant's application for amendment in the appeal memo to insert some additional grounds, for the reasons stated in it without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of such ground, IA is allowed and appellant's counsel is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the grounds of appeal memo within fifteen days, failing which the appellant shall not be entitled to get the benefit of this order.

Also heard on IA No.6933/13, application application under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC for taking some documents on record.

Having heard perused the documents the same is the copy of judgment and decree dated dated 20.7.2004 passed by the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.20-A/04 being public document is admissible under the law and same can be taken on record even without any application under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 of CPC, hence by allowing the aforesaid IA such document is taken on record, same shall be considered at the time of hearing the arguments on merits.

Let this matter be listed along with S. A. No.1308/2004 for final hearing in due course.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.31/06.

26.11.2014.

Shri G. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Instead to argue the case on admission the appellant's counsel seeks short adjournment on the ground of non-availability of arguing counsel Shri L. N. Sakle, as he is busy before some other Bench of this Court and he has not come prepared with the matter.

Considering his prayer the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the month of January, 2015. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2582-05.

26.11.2014.

Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Instead to argue the case on admission the appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted short adjournment to examine some more legal position before making his submission.

Let this matter be listed in the month of January, 2015 for admission.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2289-05.

26.11.2014.

Shri M. L. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pradeep Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant.

Let the record of the Courts below be requisition positively within one month through special messenger and case be listed in the first week of January, 2015 for admission.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2065-05.

26.11.2014.

Shri A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission.

Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view his arguments after perusing the record of the Courts below along with the impugned judgments this appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether, the learned lower appellate Court rightly and justifiedly believed upon the unregistered Will (Ex.P.4), date 26.10.1995, execution of which has not been proved by respondent No.1 as required under the law ?

2. Whether, the learned lower appellate Court is correct in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court holding the appellant owner and landlord of disputed property on the basis of Registered Will (Ex. D.1), dated 21.01.93 being legally adopted son of late Gothia and Manmatbai ? Counsel of the respondents have taken notice of this admission, hence no further notices are required.

The appellant's counsel is directed to supply the certified copy of the the framed substantial question of law to the counsel of the respondents enabling them to defend the matter.

Counsel of the respondent No.1 seeks for and is granted a period of one month to file the reply of IA No.6831/05, appellant's application for grant of stay against operation and execution of the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate.

Let this matter be listed in the month of January, 2015. The interim order passed earlier is hereby continued till next date of hearing.

C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1059-04 26.11.2014.

Shri Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 is reportedly dead. Shri Lal Achyutendra Baghel, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

None for respondent No.3, although served. The appellant's counsel seeks for and is granted a period of 15 days either to take appropriate steps to substitute the legal representatives of respondent No.1 or to file appropriate application in this regard, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Let this matter be listed in the week commencing 15.12.2014 for appropriate order whether this appeal could be treated to be abated till the extent of deceased respondent No.1 or in view of date of his death it requires any other order because as per submission of the counsel of respondent No.2 the respondent No.1 has passed away before filing this second appeal but after passing the judgment and decree by the appellate Court.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.179/07.

27.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Vibhudandra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 4 and 6 to 11.

Respondent No.5 is still unserved.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Let the default be cured within five working days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.179/07.

27.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Vibhudandra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 4 and 6 to 11.

Respondent No.5 is still unserved.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Let the default be cured within five working days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.174-08 27.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.6. Having perused the IA No.2230/08, appellant's application for deleting the name of respondent No.5 from the array of appeal memo, for the reasons stated in it the same is allowed and appellant's counsel is directed to delete the name of such respondent from the array of appeal memo within five working days, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.164-07.

27.11.2014.

Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that although on 22.4.2014 he declared on the record that in pendency of this appeal the respondent No.2 has passed away but on proper verification he has received the information that respondent No.2 is still alive and respondent No.1 has passed away on 4.1.2011 and in such premises he seeks short adjournment of fifteen day to take approaching steps to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k Cr. A. No.980-14 27.11.2014.

Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. At the request of the appellant's counsel the case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.2-02.

27.11.2014.

Shri Rajesh Nema, learned counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 and 2, although represented through duly engaged counsel.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for respondent No.3. This case is listed today for consideration of IA No.4730/10, an application of compromise filed with the joint signature of the private parties. In order to carry out the verification of such compromise the presence of the private parties are required before the Court but since last more than fours years none of the party has appeared before the Court to carry out the verification of compromise.

By referring the averments of the compromise application, I am apprised by the appellant's counsel that according to its averments respondent No.1 Khamli Bai was passed away before filing such compromise application. He also said that in view of specific averments in this application which is also signed by both the parties no further verification regarding factum of death of respondent No.1 is required. He further said that the son of respondent No.1 namely Bilchand has already on record as respondent No.2 and in such premises the estate of the deceased respondent No.1 is duly represented on the record, so there is no necessity to substitute the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record and in such premises he seeks permission to delete the name of respondent No.1 from the array of appeal memo.

In the aforesaid circumstances, by allowing the prayer of the appellant's counsel, he is permitted to delete the name of the respondent No.1 from the array of the appeal memo during the course of the day. With permission of the Court the same has been deleted, it is certified accordingly.

Taking into consideration that since last more than four years none of the party has appeared before the Court to assist the Court in carrying out the verification of compromise, I deem fit to send this compromise application for its verification findings to the trial Court. Consequently, it is directed that the aforesaid compromise application along with the record of the trial Court by retaining the photo copy of the compromise application and annexed papers on record be sent to the trial Court within fifteen days from today with a direction to such Court to call the parties within further forty five days and carry out verification of the same and after recording the findings on such compromise application sent back the application along with the findings and the record of the trial Court to this Court within thirty days from the date of carrying out the aforesaid verification.

Office is also directed to inform the counsel of the respondent No.2 through memo within five days from today to keep present the respondent No.2 before the trial Court on 18.12.2014 and counsel present are also directed to keep present their respective party before the trial Court on such date.

Now this matter be listed for consideration of IA No.4730/10 in the second week of March, 2015.

Copy of this order be also sent to the trial Court. C. C. as per rules.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.209-95.

27.11.2014.

Appellant No.1 is reportedly dead.

Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 so also for legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 mentioned in IA No.5330/14, appellant's application under Order 22 Rule 11 r/w Order 3 of CPC.

None for respondent No.a, b and d, although represented through duly engaged counsel.

Respondent No.c is reportedly dead. Notice of IA No.11059/12, 2611/13, 2614/13 issued to the legal representative of deceased respondent No.c are received back unserved with a report that on account of non-mentioning the caste of such persons the same could not be traced out at the concerning place.

In the available circumstances so also considering the prayer of the appellant's counsel it is directed that on payment of P. F. of ordinary post within seven days notices of aforesaid IAs as well as of IA No.5003/14, an application of the applicant to substitute her name at the place of appellant No.1, by fixing a date in the month of February, 2012 be prepared and same be given Hum-dast to appearing counsel of the appellant for its service on the legal representative of deceased respondent No.c through Nazarat office, District Court, Panna.

The appellants' counsel is further directed to submit its servicer report immediately after making the service on affidavit in this Court.

It is made clear that if the aforesaid ordinary process is not paid within the aforesaid prescribed period then this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.

Case be listed on a date which is so mentioned in the aforesaid notices.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1647-08.

27.11.2014.

Shri A. M. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent No.3. Counsel of the private respondent submits that subject to admission of this appeal he will file the reply of IA No.13999/08.

The appearing counsel of the appellant seeks short adjournment on the ground of non-availability of arguing counsel Shri Suman Bhattacharya, as he has gone out of station for personal reason.

Considering aforesaid prayer the case is adjourned. Even otherwise the hearing on the question of admission is not possible today because the record of the Courts below is not available.

Let this matter be listed under the same head in the month of February, 2014.

Meanwhile the record of the Courts below be requisitioned through special messenger.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1617-08.

27.11.2014.

None for the appellant.

Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. Earlier this case was listed on 13.11.2014 before the coordinate Bench of this Court but on taking up the matter for hearing no one was present, on which the case was adjourned with a direction to place this matter today. But the same position is today that on taking up the matter no one is present to prosecute this appeal. In such premises, it appears that the appellant is no more interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1129-08.

27.11.2014.

Shri Riyaz Mohd. learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the respondent. Instead to argue the case today, the appellant's counsel seeks short adjournment of one month for further preparation of the matter.

Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.163-08.

27.11.2014.

Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Amit Sharma, learned P. L. for the respondent/State. In the course of the arguments on admission on asking the appellant's counsel that concurrent findings of the Court below on the question of adoption whether the allege person was adopted or not being findings of fact, how could be treated to be a question of law,on which instead to argue further he seeks for and is granted short adjournment to examine some more legal position.

Let this matter be listed in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k S. A. No.1362-05.

28.11.2014.

Shri Pramesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant seeks short adjournment saying that due to some personal reason he could not prepare the matter to make the submission on admission and seeks short adjournment.

Considering his prayer case is adjourned with a direction to place under the same head in the month of January, 2015.

(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge k