Dismissed

Sh Shanti Lal Prajapat v. Sh Suresh Kumar Prajapat Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2015CW/2528/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the District Judge's appeal order that quashed an interim injunction under CPC Order 39. The High Court held that since the petitioner had filed a comprehensive partition suit covering all questions, interference under writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and stay application were disposed of without any modification to the impugned order.

Sh Shanti Lal Prajapat Vs Sh Suresh Kumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR

¶3

S. B. Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on no. 2528/ 2014

¶4

Sh. Shant i Lal Pr aj apat vs Sh. Sur esh Kumar Pr aj apat and Anr .

¶5

Dat e of or der r eser ved : : : 19. 1. 2015 Dat e of Or der pr onounced : : : 06. 2. 2015 HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE J. K. RANKA

¶6

Mr . Vi kash Jai n f or t he pet i t i oner Mr . Rahul Agar wal f or t he r espondent s

¶7

Thi s i nst ant wr i t pet i t i on i s di r ect ed agai nst t he or der dat ed 20. 2. 2014 passed by t he l ear ned Di st r i ct Judge, Aj mer i n Ci vi l Mi sc. Appeal no. 47/ 2013 wher eby t he appel l at e cour t par t l y al l owed t he appeal of t he def endant s- r espondent s her ei n and set asi de t he or der dat ed 3. 5. 2013 by whi ch t he t r i al cour t al l owed t he appl i cat i on under Or der 39 Rul es 1 & 2 of CPC and gr ant ed t empor ar y i nj unct i on i n f avour of pet i t i oner / pl ai nt i f f . Lear ned Di st r i ct Judge whi l e al l owi ng t he appeal f ur t her di r ect ed t hat i f t he def endant s- r espondent s i nt end t o t r ansf er t he sui t pr oper t y or any par t t her eof , t hey shal l f ur ni sh pr i or i nf or mat i on of such t r ansf er i n t he cour t and shal l al so i ncor por at e t he f act of pendency of l i t i gat i on i n t he document of t r ansf er . Bei ng aggr i eved of t he appel l at e

¶8

¶9

or der , t he pl ai nt i f f - pet i t i oner has appr oached t hi s cour t by way of i nst ant pet i t i on.

¶10

Lear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner vehement l y submi t s t hat t he appel l at e cour t exceeded i t s j ur i sdi ct i on i n al l owi ng t he appeal and quashi ng t he i nt er i m i nj unct i on or der passed by t he t r i al cour t . He f ur t her submi t s t hat

¶11

t he t r i al cour t had passed a wel l r easoned and pr oper or der under O. 39 R. 1 & 2 of CPC by r est r ai ni ng t he def endant s f r om t r ansf er r i ng t he sui t pr oper t y or any par t t her eof and mai nt ai ni ng st at us quo and t hus i nt er f er ence by t he appel l at e cour t was uncal l ed f or . He f ur t her submi t s t hat t he def endant s i n ut t er di sr egar d of t he or der dat ed 20. 2. 2014 passed by t he appel l at e cour t , has t r ansf er r ed t he sui t pr oper t y wi t hout f ur ni shi ng pr i or i nf or mat i on i n t he cour t and i n hast e sol d t he

¶12

di sput ed pr oper t y wi t hi n f our days of t he

¶13

or der passed by t he appel l at e cour t and as such, even gui l t y of cont empt of cour t and t he

¶14

wr i t pet i t i on i s al l owabl e on t he t hi s sol e gr ound al one. He f ur t her submi t s t hat t he sui t i nvol ves t r i abl e i ssues and t he t r i al cour t i s per f ect l y j ust i f i ed i n al l owi ng t he appl i cat i on of t he pl ai nt i f f . He pl aced r el i ance on Ni ranj an Si ngh & Anr. Vs. Raj esh Kumar, 2013 WLC (Raj . ) UC 426, Narottam vs Geeta Devi & Ors, 2011 WLC (Raj . ) UC 240 and Bhagwat i Si ngh vs Raj a Laxman Si ngh 2014 WLC

¶15

¶16

(Raj . ) UC 246.

¶17

Per cont r a l ear ned counsel f or t he r espondent s submi t s t hat t he appel l at e cour t act ed wel l wi t hi n i t s j ur i sdi ct i on i n passi ng t he i mpugned or der and quashi ng t he i nt er i m i nj unct i on or der passed by t he t r i al cour t . He f ur t her submi t s t hat t he r espondent s ar e not

¶18

gui l t y of any vi ol at i on of t he di r ect i ons i ssued by t he appel l at e cour t and had t r ansf er r ed t he pr oper t y i ncor por at i ng t he f act s of pendency of t he l i t i gat i on i n t he t r ansf er deed ( sal e deed) dat ed 24. 2. 2014. He f ur t her submi t s t hat t he sui t of t he pl ai nt i f f / pet i t i oner i s of mer e i nj unct i on and t he pl ai nt i f f pet i t i oner has hi msel f subsequent l y f i l ed a compr ehensi ve sui t f or par t i t i on wi t h r egar d t o t he sui t pr oper t y and al l t he quest i ons bet ween t hem coul d wel l be set t l ed i n t hi s sui t f or par t i t i on and hence no i nt er f er ence i s cal l ed f or under t he l i mi t ed j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s cour t under Ar t i cl es 226 and 227 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a. Lear ned counsel f or t he r espondent s have r el i ed upon t he j udgment of Apex Cour t of Mahanagar Tel ephone Nigam Ltd vs State of Maharast ra and ors 2014(1) CCC 111 (S. C); K. N. Aswat hnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2014 (1) CCC 855 (S. C. ); Bruce Vs. Si l va Raj and Others (1987) (Supp. ) SCC 161 and t he j udgment of Raj ast han

¶19

¶20

High Court i n t he case of Smt . Pura Vs. Lal ki and Anot her 1999 (2) Raj . RLW 1358; Smt . Raj Dul ari Vs. Ram Ni was S/o Shri Hari Narai n & Raghuveer Chaturvedi & J. D. A. 2013 (1) WLC 292 and t he j udgment of Al l ahabad High Court i n t he case of Vi rendra Kumar Vs. Addi t i onal Di st ri ct Judge, Kannauj & Ors. 2014 (2) CCC 166 (Al l ahabad).

¶21

Hear d l d. Counsel f or t he par t i es and car ef ul l y scanned t he mat er i al avai l abl e on r ecor d.

¶22

The l aw wi t h r egar d t o power of t he cour t under or der 39 Rul e 1 & 2 r ead wi t h sect i on 151 CPC ar e wel l set t l ed. The i nt er f er ence by t he appel l at e cour t i s not war r ant ed unl ess t he di scr et i on exer ci sed by t he t r i al cour t i s pal pabl y i ncor r ect or unt enabl e. The appel l at e cour t wi l l not i nt er f er e of t he vi ew t aken by t he t r i al cour t i s a possi bl e vi ew. On t he ot her hand, t he appel l at e cour t may i nt er f er e i f t he or der of t he t r i al cour t appear s t o be ar bi t r ar y, per ver se or capr i ci ous or wher e t he t r i al cour t had i gnor ed t he set t l ed pr i nci pl es of l aw r egul at i ng gr ant or r ef usal of i nt er l ocut or y i nj unct i ons. Each case has t o be deci ded i n accor dance t o t he pecul i ar f act s t hat emer ge and no st r ai t - j acket f or mul a can be l ai d or adopt ed. The f act s emer gi ng f r om t he i nst ant pet i t i on r eveal t hat t he pl ai nt i f f / pet i t i oner has subsequent l y

¶23

¶24

i nst i t ut ed a sui t f or par t i t i on and f or ot her anci l l ar y r el i ef i n r egar d t o t he same pr oper t y, i n such a f act si t uat i on, t hi s cour t i s of t he opi ni on t hat al l t he quest i ons bet ween t he par t i es can be det er mi ned i n t he subsequent sui t whi ch i s mor e compr ehensi ve i n nat ur e and no i nt er f er ence i s war r ant ed under

¶25

t he super vi sor y j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s cour t i n t he i nst ant pet i t i on.

¶26

Bef or e par t i ng, t hi s cour t deems i t j ust and

¶27

pr oper t o cl ar i f y t hat t he subsequent par t i t i on sui t and ot her i nt er l ocut or y appl i cat i ons, i f any, f i l ed i n t hi s par t i t i on sui t , shal l be deci ded i n accor dance wi t h l aw wi t hout bei ng i nf l uenced by any obser vat i on made i n t he or der dat ed 3. 5. 2013 passed by t he t r i al cour t or t he or der dat ed 20. 2. 2014 passed by t he appel l at e cour t or by t he i nst ant or der . I t i s f ur t her cl ar i f i ed t hat whet her t he def endant s have def i ed t he di r ect i on i ssued by t he appel l at e cour t i n or der dat ed 20. 2. 2014 or any ot her or der of t he cour t or ar e not gui l t y of any br each may al so be deci ded i n appr opr i at e pr oceedi ngs, i f i ni t i at ed by t he pl ai nt i f f . Needl ess t o ment i on her e t hat t he par t i es shal l be f r ee t o r ai se and agi t at e al l l egal cont ent i ons avai l abl e by j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs bet ween t hem.

¶28

Wi t h t hese obser vat i ons, t he wr i t pet i t i on

¶29

¶30

st ands di sposed of . The st ay appl i cat i on i s al so st ands di sposed of .

¶31

Si nce t he mat t er per t ai ns t o r i ght s of t he par t i es i n pr oper t i es, t her ef or e, t he t r i al cour t woul d deci de t he subsequent sui t f i l ed by t he pl ai nt i f f pet i t i oner expedi t i ousl y.

¶32

om Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng e- mai l ed. Om pr akash P. A.

Sh Shanti Lal Prajapat v. Sh Suresh Kumar Prajapat Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Shanti Lal Prajapat v. Sh Suresh Kumar Prajapat 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

State of Rajasthan Vs Ganesh Singh and Ors.

Puran Mal Sharma Vs Dholpur Telephone Karmchari Sahakari

Smt Bhawana Soni Vs Ashutosh Bhama

Shri Rustam Vs Smt Radha Hemnani and Anr.

Smt Nidhi Vs Manish

Smt Anita Vs Padam Kumar Jaliya