In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Additional District Judge's dismissal of an application to decide an issue as a preliminary. The High Court held that since the issue did not pertain to jurisdiction or a legal bar, the application was meritless under Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC.
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. Civil Writ Petition No.1942/ 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1942/ 2014 Sajal Das vs. Smt. Sandhya Das & Ors.
Date of Order :: 5th March, 2014
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Mr. Rajvir Sharma, for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT :
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1942/ 2014
2
Rajasthan Court Fees Act, 1961, the said issue is required to be decided as a preliminary issue. The said submission of Mr. Sharma cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per Order XIV, Rule 2 of CPC, only such issue which relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force could be decided as a preliminary issue. The issue No.3 neither pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court nor to the bar under any law, the same could not be decided as a preliminary issue. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of N.R. Govindarajan vs. V.K. Rajgopalan & Ors, (2005) 12 SCC 362 & this Court in case of Mohkam Chand Dasot & Anr. vs. Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, 2006(2) WLC 431 in support of his submissions. However, the said decisions have no application to the facts of the present case.
(Bela M. Trivedi) J.
Sanjay Solanki JrPA
Sanjay SolankiJrPA41 “ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Sanjay Solanki Jr. Personal Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application to decide an issue as a preliminary issue is maintainable when the issue does not relate to court jurisdiction or a statutory bar to the suit.
Whether non-payment of court fees as per the Rajasthan Court Fees Act, 1961, warrants the recasting of an issue as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.R. Govindarajan vs. V.K. Rajgopalan & Ors.Referred¶16
N.R. Govindarajan vs. V.K. Rajgopalan & Ors, (2005) 12 SCC 362 · Who else cites this
Mohkam Chand Dasot & Anr. vs. Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur City, JaipurReferred¶16
Mohkam Chand Dasot & Anr. vs. Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, 2006(2) WLC 431
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sajal Das
Smt. Sandhya Das & Ors.
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
