Disposed

Municipal Board Dungarpur v. Dhanpal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Feb 2013CMA/2400/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal by directing that the extra sum paid by the plaintiffs under an interim order be adjusted toward future rent if they succeed in their suit, and instructed the trial court to proceed without being influenced by related orders.

What did the court decide?

Payment made by plaintiffs under interim order to be adjusted towards future rent if they succeed in the suit.

Municipal Board Dungarpur Vs Dhanpal and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: J U D G M E N T :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2400/2011

¶5

Municipal Board, Dungarpur

Vs.

Dhanpal & Ors.

Date of Judgment

20^th February, 2013

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Mr. Bheem Arora, for the appellant. Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondents.

¶13

BY THE COURT:

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

This appeal has been preferred by the Municipal Board, Dungarpur aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur, whereby, while deciding application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC the trial court directed the appellant by way of mandatory injunction to allot the shops by way of lottery to the plaintiffs based on its original resolution within a period of two months.

¶16

When this appeal came up before this Court vide interim order dated 26.09.2011 it was ordered as under:-

¶17

“Learned counsel for the appellant – Municipal Board relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Ganesh Coconuts & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) CDR 1296 (Raj.) (DB) , in which it has been held that rate for the plot realized by the respondent – Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti differently from the allottee(s), who were already having their existing business place, and allottee(s) of second phase, outsiders could be different and there was no illegality in the same. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by the impugned order dated 18.07.2011, the learned court below

¶18

¶19

has erred in directing the appellant-defendant for considering the applications of the allottee(s), who were sublettee/s of the original allottee(s) of the shops at the same old rate of Rs.92,000/- per shop; whereas the Municipal Board has resolved to charge Rs.1 lac extra from such sublettee/s under the Resolution dated 18.06.2010 (Annex-P/3).

¶20

The matter requires consideration. Let notices be issued to the respondents, returnable within two weeks. Notices may be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for the appellant.

¶21

In the meanwhile, the operation of the trial court's order dated 18.07.2011 to the extent it directs the appellant – Municipal Board to consider the proposals for allotment to such sublettee/s only at the original rate of Rs.92,000/- shall remain stayed, and if such allotments are made in favour of sublettee/s on the increased as per Resolution dated 18.06.2010, the appellant shall be free to charge the rate of allotments at the increased rate. This arrangement will remain subject to final decision of this appeal and decision of the suit itself.”

¶22

Today, it is submitted by both the counsel that though an application was filed on behalf of the respondents seeking vacation of the said interim order, in compliance of the said order the plaintiffs have deposited Rs.1,00,000/- extra in pursuance of the resolution dated 18.06.2010 (basis for demanding additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each from the sublettees) and the shops have been allotted to the plaintiffs.

¶23

In view of the fact that by way of interim order this Court while staying the operation of the impugned order dated 18.07.2011 directed the Municipal Board to make allotments and such allotments have in fact been made, it is deemed just and proper and, as such, ordered that as already directed by the order dated 26.09.2011, the payment made by the plaintiffs shall remain subject to the final decision of the suit and, if ultimately the plaintiffs succeed in suit filed by them, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by them shall be adjusted towards their future monthly rent.

¶24

¶25

It goes without saying that the trial court shall proceed with the suit without being influenced by the order dated 18.07.2011 passed by it as well as the order dated 26.09.2011 and this order passed today by this Court.

¶26

With these observations and conditions the appeal stands disposed of.

¶27

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶28

A.K.Chouhan/- 61

Municipal Board Dungarpur v. Dhanpal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Board Dungarpur v. Dhanpal and Ors.

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

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pabu Ram and Ors.

Mukund Sanghi Vs M/S Tata Motors Ltd.and Ors.

M/S Udaipur Chemicals Industry Vs National Highway Auth.of India and Anr.

Bhanwar Lal and Anr. Vs Smt.Kamla and Ors.

Shyam Sunder Vs Kishore Mal and Anr.

Mst. Kamla Vs Mst. Mangi Bai and Ors.