Remanded

Managing Commitee Gaur Vipra S v. Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari and or

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2008CW/10261/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders passed by the executing court in a case for execution of a decree. The petitioner claimed the order was passed in their absence. The court set aside the orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 2.6.07 and 1.11.07 set aside; matter remanded to executing court for fresh decision within two months.

Managing Commitee Gaur Vipra S Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10261/07
Managing Committee Gaur Vipra Sr.
Secondary School
Vs.

¶4

Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors.

¶5

Date of order : 7/2/2008.

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶7

Shri Rishi Parashar for the petitioner.
Shri C.P. Sharma for the respondent.

¶8

******

¶9

This writ petition is filed against

¶10

the order dated 1.11.07 and 2.6.07. The
Executing Court passed the order dated
2.6.07 directing thereby deduction of the
amount payable to the respondent-decree
holder out of the grant-in-aid received by
it from the Government.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶12

raised a limited grievance that when the

¶13

matter was last listed before the
Executing Court on 22.6.2007, the
Presiding Officer was on leave and the

¶14

¶15

Reader of the Court in the presence of
both the counsels fixed the date as
11.7.2007, but subsequently the date was
changed to 29.5.2007 and he never came to
know about this change of the date. When
the matter was listed on 29.5.2007, it was
in his absence adjourned to 1.6.2007 and
thereafter on 2.6.2007, the aforesaid
impugned order was passed in the absence
of the petitioner. When the application
was submitted by the petitioner for
recalling of the aforesaid order citing
the reasons aforementioned, the learned
Executing Court rejected the application.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents
although during the course of arguments
submitted that the date 11.7.07 was
changed to 29.5.07 in the presence of the
counsel for the petitioner, but he could
not cite any such discussion from the
order dated 1.11.2007 whereby application

¶17

¶18

for recalling of the order dated 2.6.07
filed by the petitioner was rejected by
the learned Executing Court.

¶19

In the facts of the case, I deem it
appropriate that the learned Executing
Court shall consider the entire matter
afresh after giving opportunity of hearing
to both the judgment debtor and the decree
holder. While therefore setting aside the
order dated 2.6.07 and 1.11.07, I remand
the matter back to the learned Executing
Court for deciding it afresh within two
months from the date certified copy of the
order is submitted.

¶20

The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.

¶21

 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶22

RS/

Managing Commitee Gaur Vipra S v. Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Commitee Gaur Vipra S v. Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Satnam Das Bhairu Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ruksana Vs the Addi District Judge No 3

Fazal Noor Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Suresh Kumawat and Anr. Vs Addi Civil Judge J D and Ors.

Kailash Bai Vs the Addi District Judge No 3

Ninua Ram Vs Addi District Judge No 2 and O