Partly allowed

Phool Chand Jat and Ors. v. Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Others

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2015CRES/842/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a restoration application to recall an order dismissing a contempt petition for default, pursuant to Article 215 and Section 151 CPC. Subsequently, with party consent, the contempt petition itself was dismissed as withdrawn, preserving the liberty to challenge the underlying rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of contempt petition No.1075/2014 to original number; Contempt petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to assail the order rejecting representation.

Phool Chand Jat and Ors. Vs Shri Naresh Pal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Restoration Application No.842/2015

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1075 of 2014. Phool Chand & Others Vs. Naresh Pal Gangwar & Others

¶5

Date of Order ::: 16.10.2015

¶6

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

¶7

Mr. G.L. Sharma, Counsel for the applicant/petitioners Mr. Rakesh Gaur, Assistant Government Counsel, for Shri S.K. Gupta, A.A.G., for the respondents

¶8

¶9

Instant miscellaneous application has been preferred

¶10

under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling order dated 05.10.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1075/2014 by which contempt petition was dismissed for default.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioners and for the reasons mentioned therein, the present restoration application is allowed . The order dated 05.10.2015 is recalled and the petition is ordered to be restored to its original number.

¶12

With the consent of both the parties, the contempt petition is taken up on the Board for disposal :-

¶13

Mr. G.L. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for

¶14

the petitioners, has very fairly submitted that in compliance of the order dated 09.11.2013, the respondents have decided

¶15

¶16

representation of the petitioners. However, learned counsel further submitted that the reasons given in the order rejecting representation of the petitioners are palpably wrong and same are not legally tenable. Thus, learned counsel submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present contempt petition

¶17

with liberty to assail the order passed by the respondents on the representation filed by the petitioners by availing lawful remedy in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶18

As prayed, the present contempt petition is, hereby,

¶19

dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

¶20

[Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] J.

¶21

ashok/Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Ashok Kumar Songara/Sr.P.A.cum J.W.

Phool Chand Jat and Ors. v. Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Chand Jat and Ors. v. Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Others

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

Majid Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mr Nitin Makhija Vs Mrs Nitika

Raghubir Vs Subhash Chand Mehrashi and Others

Salli@Suleman Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sadu Ram Vs Prabhat @ Giga and Ors.

Virendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp