Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Dhruv v. Ultratech Cement Limited (Hirmi Cement Plant), Larson and Tubro Limited

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jun 2024WP227/328/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition challenging dismissal of application to frame issues under CPC. Court held trial court erred not framing issues on suit prayer and set aside order to frame issues on declaration suit aspects.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; trial court directed to frame issues regarding voidness of judgment and sale deed.

Dinesh Kumar Dhruv Vs Ultratech Cement Limited… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 328 of 2023

¶5

Dinesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Than Singh Dhruv, Aged About 38 Years

¶6

Naresh Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Than Singh Dhruv, Aged About 35 Years

¶7

Shashi Devi D/o Late Than Singh Dhruv, Aged About 46 Years

¶8

Radhadevi Wd/o Late Than Singh Dhruv Aged About 53 Years

¶9

Archna Kumari Dhruv D/o Late Than Singh Dhruv, Aged About 24 Years

¶10

Brijesh Dhruv S/o Late Than Singh Dhruv, Aged About 22 Years

¶11

Pravesh Dhruv S/o Late Than Singh Dhruv Aged About 20 Years

¶12

All are R/o Village Hirmi, Post Hirmi, Tehsil Simga, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Ultratech Cement Limited (Hirmi Cement Plant), Larson And Tubro Limited (The Surviving Company Of The Cement Plant) Through Manager And Authorised Officer (Hirmi Cement Plant), Hirmi, Tehsil, District : Balaudabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : BalaudabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶17

---- Respondent

¶18

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶19

For Petitioners Mr. Afak Hussain Rijwi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate

¶20

For Respondent/State Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate

¶21

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶22

¶23

13/6/2024

¶24

This petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Bhatapara in Civil Suit No.27A/2018, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs for framing of the additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC has been dismissed.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Civil Suit No.16-A/1995 and the sale-deed dated 15.2.2000 as invalid and void and also to declare their right and title over the suit land. However, on such aspect, since no issue has been framed, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC was preferred, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this petition.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition with utmost circumspection.

¶27

Framing of issues is required to be done by the Civil Court at the first hearing of a suit, as detailed in Order 14 Rule 1 of the CPC. This has to be done after determining the material propositions of fact or law upon which the parties are at variance, having gone through the plaint and written statement, if any.

¶28

¶29

5. In the matter of Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi, (2011)

¶30

8 SCC 249 , it has been observed that :

¶31

41. Framing of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation and it is the bounden duty of the court that due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the learned Presiding Judge while framing of issues.

¶32

In the matter of Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple v. Meenakshi Ammal, (2015) 3 SCC 624 Para 15" .............It is trite that the obligation and duty to frame issues is cast solely on the court which may, nevertheless, elicit suggestions from the litigating adversaries before it. Issues settled by the court under Order 14 CPC constitute the crystallisation of the conflict or the distillation of the dispute between the parties to the lis, and are in the nature of disputed questions of fact and/or of law. While discharging this primary function, the court is expected to peruse the pleadings of the parties in order to extract their essence, analyse the allegations of the parties and the contents of the documents produced by them, and, thereafter, proceed to frame the issues.

¶33

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, in view of the settled proposition of law and also considering that the pleadings are the foundation of the civil suit in order to declare the impugned judgment and decree and the sale-deed as void and on such material pleadings, since no issue was framed, the

¶34

¶35

petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC, which was ultimately dismissed.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is hereby set-aside . The concerned trial Court is directed to frame issues on such aspect and thereafter, proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶38

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance. Sd/-

¶39

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶40

Judge

¶41

Shyna

Dinesh Kumar Dhruv v. Ultratech Cement Limited (Hirmi Cement Plant), Larson and Tubro Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Dhruv v. Ultratech Cement Limited (Hirmi Cement Plant), Larson and Tubro Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raipur Municipal Corporation Vs Assistant Privident Fund Commissioner And Recovery Officer

Smt. Khushabu Mishra Vs Manish Mishra

T. Laxmi Vs Ramsingh

Ganesh Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Kanak Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santram Banjare Vs Golu @ Sandeep Banjare