The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order directing compliance in a specific performance suit. The Court held that it should not interfere with pure findings of fact as there was no perversity in the impugned order.
Writ petition and stay application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. CWP No. 1617/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/2009 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 214/2009 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V/s. Shri Premchand Jain & Ors.
Date of Order: 1st December, 2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI
Mr. S.Kasliwal Senior Counsel with Mr. R.N. Vijay, for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Sharma Senior Counsel ] Mr. R.K. Daga with Mr. Ankit Sethi] for the Mr. Virendra Singh on behalf of ] respondents Mr. Manish Sharma ]
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 21st January, 2009, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, decided the application dated 16th January, 2009, filed by the petitioner-Corporation and directed the petitioner to comply with the order dated 17th December, 2008 strictly and apprise the court with the compliance made, failing which the show cause notice be issued asking as to why should not an action with regard to eviction as also for the disobedience of the said order be taken against the petitioner Corporation.
S.B. CWP No. 1617/2009 2
material on record, it is noticed that a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction came to be filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondentsdefendants alongwith the application of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, wherein afore-stated order was passed. When the directions issued on application of temporary injunction were not complied with by the parties, the respondentsdefendants filed an application under Section 151 of CPC. This application was adjudicated vide order dated 17th December, 2008.
3
S.B. CWP No. 1617/2009
that it could be prepared on stamp papers, but the respondents-defendants failed to convey the date of registration of fresh lease-deed. The petitioner-plaintiff submitted before the learned trial court that he had already sent the fresh lease-deed, but the same was not being registered by the respondents-defendants. During arguments, it emerged that both the parties wanted to incorporate those terms and conditions also, which were neither agreed upon nor existed in the minutes. Thus, the learned court below directed the petitioner-plaintiff to first of all comply with the order dated 17th December, 2008 strictly and apprise the court within 15 days with the compliance.
S.B. CWP No. 1617/2009 4
jurisdiction should escape from interfering with the impugned orders of the courts below and such powers should be exercised sparingly and not in routine. It is also settled law that the High Court should be very slow in upsetting the pure finding of facts.
S.B. CWP No. 1617/2009 5
nor is it found to be contrary to material. This court does not feel inclined to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction to upset pure finding of facts, hence, the writ petition being devoid of any substance, deserves to be dismissed.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI)J.
Mak/51
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the impugned order.
Whether the impugned order based on the findings of the trial court is perverse or contrary to material on record.
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Shri Premchand Jain
Mahesh Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
