Dismissed

Sadu Ram v. Prabhat @ Giga and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2015CW/14777/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition assailing a Board of Revenue order that allowed a revision to join parties under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The Court upheld the revision and concurrently ordered that pending suits by the petitioner and respondents be decided simultaneously but separately.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; revision order dated 29.7.2015 upheld; suits to be decided simultaneously but separately.

Sadu Ram Vs Prabhat @ Giga and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14777/2015 (Sadu Ram v. Prabhat @ Giga & Ors.)

¶5

Date of Order: 16/10/2015

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶8

Mr. Bharat Saini, for the petitioner.

¶9

Present petition has been filed to assail the order dated 29.7.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Revision No.TA/7718/2014/Jhunjhunu whereby the Board has set aside the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Udaipurwati and had allowed the application filed by respondents No.1 and 2 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and correction of entries in the revenue record and for grant of permanent injunction against the respondents No.3 to 8. During pendency of the suit, respondents No.1 and 2 had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. Learned counsel contends that the averments made in the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC were false and fabricated. Counsel states that the ground pleaded in the application were untenable and therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer, Udaipurwati vide impugned order dated 18.12.2014 (Annx.4) had declined the application.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved against the order (Annx.4), respondents No.1 and 2 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 29.7.2015 (Annx.5) allowed the application. Learned counsel has submitted that in the application it was pleaded that Surja Ram father of the petitioner and

¶12

¶13

Chanda Ram were real brothers. After death of Chanda Ram, Narayani Devi mother of the petitioner had affected Karewa marriage with Surja Ram. Learned counsel contends that it is wrongly pleaded in the application that after death of Chanda Ram, respondents No.1 and 2 were treated by Surja Ram as son and daughter.

¶14

The Board of Revenue while allowing the revision has held that the averments made in the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC contain mixed questions of law and fact, therefore they can only be determined after evidence is led by the parties. Revisional court has validly exercised its discretion. It cannot be said that there is a patent illegality in the order passed by the revisional court below.

¶15

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that seeking the same relief respondents No.1 and 2 have also filed a separate suit in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Udaipurwati. Therefore, the questions raised in the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC are also the questions raised for determination in the suit filed by them. Therefore, allowing the application will be superfluous and will cause multiplicity of litigation.

¶16

Finding merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is ordered that the suit filed by the petitioner and the suit filed by respondents No.1 and 2 shall be decided simultaneously but separately. However, the order dated 29.7.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC is upheld to ward off future complications and the petition is hereby, dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.

¶17

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.

¶18

Govind/-

¶19

¶20

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶21

Govind Sharma, Sr.PA

Sadu Ram v. Prabhat @ Giga and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadu Ram v. Prabhat @ Giga and Ors.

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.

Virendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

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