Disposed

Bhanwar Lal v. Kailash and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2010CW/3162/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the trial court acted incorrectly by refusing to record a reply to a temporary injunction application despite a prior direction to record the written statement. The Court directed the subordinate court to treat the reply as admitted if filed with the written statement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to take on record the reply to the Temporary Injunction Application if filed along with the main Written Statement.

Bhanwar Lal Vs Kailash and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

CW-3162/10-Bhanwar Lal Vs. Kailash & Ors. Judgment dt.5.4.10

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3162/2010 Bhanwar Lal Vs. Kailash & Ors.

¶3

Date of order

¶4

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

Mr. Ravi Bhansali for the petitioner.

¶6

Heard learned counsel.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the earlier writ petition No.9028/2008 – Bhanwar Lal Vs. Kailash & Ors. was allowed by this Court on 13.11.2009 permitting the written statement of the defendant-petitioner to be taken on record subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff, the learned trial court has refused to take on record the reply to the application for temporary injunction which was separately filed by the defendant-petitioner but at the same time and only written statement to the main plaint in the suit has been taken on record in pursuance of the said directions of this Court.

¶8

Though no written order has been passed by the learned trial court in this regard, the defendant-petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition only for this limited relief.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that it reflects very badly on the Presiding Officer, who has orally refused to take on record the written statement/ reply to the application for temporary injunction as stated in para 4 of the writ petition though written statement / reply to the main suit itself has been taken on record in pursuance of directions of this Court even

¶10

2/2

¶11

CW-3162/10-Bhanwar Lal Vs. Kailash & Ors. Judgment dt.5.4.10

¶12

though the same was filed separately.

¶13

The learned Presiding Officers of the subordinate Courts have to look into the letter and spirit of the order passed by the Court and cannot take such a pedantic and narrow view that a separate order of High Court was required for taking on record reply to the T.I. Application. The learned Presiding Officer is warned to be more careful in future. Though the name of the Presiding Officer is not available in the petition before this Court nor learned counsel knows it, however, a copy of this order may be sent to the said trial Court for aforesaid purpose.

¶14

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to take on record the reply to T.I. Application also if filed along with main Written Statement. Copy of this order be sent to the opposite parties and learned trial court.

¶15

[ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.

¶16

item No.1 babulal/

Bhanwar Lal v. Kailash and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal v. Kailash and Ors.

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

Rajdhani Marmo and Tiles Pvt.Ltd.and Ors. Vs Kimbar Lay Engineer Pvt.Ltd.

United India Insurancr Com Vs Radha Bai and Ans

M/S Lahar Ice Cream Factory Vs A.C.T.O.WARD-2,CIRCLE-D,JODHPUR

Puna Lal Vs Gopal Lal and Ors.

N.R.T.Traders Vs Raj Kumar

Kareem Bux Vs State of Raj. and Anr.