Dismissed

Om Prakash v. Smt. Pushpa

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2015CR/273/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed three civil revision petitions challenging the rejection of applications to cancel sale deeds under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The Court held that the Trial Court was correct in refusing to decree the matter without impleading the principal owner, whose consent is necessary for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

All three civil revision petitions dismissed; parties directed to implead the principal owner and proceed accordingly.

Om Prakash Vs Smt. Pushpa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.269/2014. Om Prakash S/o Tulsi Ram Bhattad Vs. Dayal Chand S/o Rikhab Raj Oswal .... [Along with two connected matters]

¶2

Order dated 19.02.2015.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶4

AT JODHPUR.

¶5

:: ORDER ::

¶6

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.269/2014.

¶7

Om Prakash S/o Tulsi Ram Bhattad

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Dayal Chand S/o Rikhab Raj Oswal

¶10

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.273/2014.

¶11

Om Prakash S/o Tulsi Ram Bhattad

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Smt. Pushpa W/o Dayal Chand Oswal

¶14

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.274/2014.

¶15

Om Prakash S/o Tulsi Ram Bhattad

¶16

Vs.

¶17

Jagdish Chandra Verma S/o Shyam Sunder Verma

¶18

Date of Order :::: 19^th February, 2015.

¶19

P R E S E N T

¶20

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶21

Appearance:

¶22

Mr. C.P. Soni, for the petitioner-plaintiff.

¶23

<<>>

¶24

BY THE COURT :

¶25

All these three revision petitions are arising out of the order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur respectively in Civil Case Nos. 46/2013 “Om Prakash Vs. Dayal Chand”, 48/2013 “Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Pushpa” and 47/2013 “Om Prakash Vs. Jagdish Chandra” who dismissed the applications filed by the

¶26

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.269/2014. Om Prakash S/o Tulsi Ram Bhattad Vs. Dayal Chand S/o Rikhab Raj Oswal .... [Along with two connected matters]

¶27

Order dated 19.02.2015.

¶28

present petitioner-plaintiff Om Prakash under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for decision of the respective suits, seeking cancellation of the questioned sale-deeds, on the admission of the plaintiff and the defendants and without the trial in the case.

¶29

These three revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff Om Prakash S/o Tulsi Ram Bhattad, who purportedly sold the plot of land in question in favour of the respondents-defendants, namely, Dayal Chand S/o Rikhab Raj Oswal, Smt. Pushpa W/o Dayal Chand Oswal and Jagdish Chandra Verma S/o Shyam Sunder Verma on 07.12.2012 . Admitting the fact in the plaint that the plot in question has wrongly been and on the mistake of the fact sold to the defendants as power of attorney of Ramesh Maheshwari S/o Madan Lal Maheshwari, the principal and owner of the plot in question, who had actually sold the same plot of land in favour of some third party and, therefore, the plaintiff prayed that the sale deeds got executed by him in favour of the present defendants, named above, deserve to be cancelled.

¶30

The defendants-purchasers also filed their respective writtenstatement admitting the said mistake of fact and agreed for cancellation of the sale deeds and thus, the plaintiff had preferred the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of

¶31

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.269/2014. Om Prakash S/o Tulsi Ram Bhattad Vs. Dayal Chand S/o Rikhab Raj Oswal .... [Along with two connected matters]

¶32

Order dated 19.02.2015.

¶33

Civil Procedure with the submissions that in view of the admitted position that the sale deeds were got executed by the plaintiff by mistake of fact and the defendants also agreed for cancellation of the same, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff may be decreed in terms of the admissions of the parties and the questioned sale deeds may be cancelled without proceeding further with the trial.

¶34

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Trial Court had rejected the applications by its order dated 24.11.2014 while observing that in the absence of the original owner of the plot in question namely, Ramesh Maheshwari and the purchaser under the said sale deed executed by the said Ramesh Maheshwari 15 years ago, the present sale deeds executed by the plaintiff Om Prakash in the year 2010 under the power of attorney, could not be cancelled only on the admissions of the defendants in the present case. Hence, all these three revision petitions have been preferred by the applicant-plaintiff Om Prakash challenging the impugned order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel Mr. C.P. Soni appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff Om Prakash, this Court does not find any error apparent in the impugned order and it was necessary for the applicant-plaintiff Om Prakash to implead the principal

¶36

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.269/2014. Om Prakash S/o Tulsi Ram Bhattad Vs. Dayal Chand S/o Rikhab Raj Oswal .... [Along with two connected matters]

¶37

Order dated 19.02.2015.

¶38

and original owner namely, Ramesh Maheshwari in the suits and it is only if the said Ramesh Maheshwari agree for cancellation of the sale-deeds executed by the plaintiff Om Prakash in the year 2010, the learned Trial Court could have decreed the suit at this stage itself without trial of the case but the same could not have been done without the principal and actual owner of the plot in question namely, Ramesh Maheshwari, therefore, this Court finds that the applications preferred by the applicant-Om Prakash have rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court. There is no force in the revision petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Accordingly and in view of the above discussion, all these three revision petition stand dismissed. However, the applicantplaintiff Om Prakash will be free now to implead the principal and actual owner of the plot in question namely, Ramesh Maheshwari, in the present suits seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the present defendants in the year 2010 and the learned Trial Court may proceed in the matter in accordance with law. No orders as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned and to all the parties concerned forthwith.

¶40

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶41

/Mohan/

¶42

/ 14, 15, 16 /

Om Prakash v. Smt. Pushpa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. Smt. Pushpa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs.of Devi Lal Vs Kanta Devi

Roop Singh @ Roopa Ram Vs Chhawar Singh

Chhawar Singh Vs Gyan Singh and Ors.

Smt. Radha Bai and Ors. Vs Nachhatar Singh and Anr.

Lrs of Mohan Lal Vs Lrs of Gheesa Lal and Anr.

Om Prakash Vs Dayal Chand