Disposed

Smt Sudha Kanwar v. Jai Singh Raghav and Others

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2016CMA/2328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the civil miscellaneous appeal without interfering with the impugned order. It directed the trial court to decide the suit for partition and permanent injunction within eighteen months, limited adjournments, and clarified the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous appeal disposed of; trial court directed to decide suit within eighteen months; doctrine of lis pendens applied; adjournments limited.

Smt Sudha Kanwar Vs Jai Singh Raghav and Others — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Smt. Sudha Kanwar Vs. Jai Singh Raghav & Smt. Nisha Kanwar (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2328/2014)

¶5

Date of Order: September 12, 2016. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶6

Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, for the appellant. Mr. Sri Ram Yadav, for respondents.

¶7

BY THE COURT :

¶8

Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter `the plaintiff') on instructions from his client present in court submits that this miscellaneous appeal be disposed of such that even while sustaining the impugned order dated 11-6-2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, the trial court be directed to finally decide the plaintiff’s suit for partition and permanent injunction expeditiously without being influenced by withdrawal of this civil miscellaneous appeal and based on the evidences on record. And it be also reiterated that the doctrine of lis pendis will attract to any transaction with regard to the suit property.

¶9

¶10

Mr. Sri Ram Yadav, counsel for the respondent-defendant (hereinafter `the defendant’) also on his client's instructions has no objection to the order sought for expeditious disposal of the suit as also the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendis, as the law so provides.

¶11

The parties are present in person, and their signatures have

¶12

been obtained in the court file.

¶13

Consequently in view of submissions of counsel, the miscellaneous appeal is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated 11-6-2014 passed by the trial court. The trial court is directed to decide the plaintiff’s suit for partition and permanent injunction within a period of eighteen months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. To facilitate compliance of this order, the trial court is directed to adhere to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Cotex Vs. Trigun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. [(2011)9 SCC 678] wherein the Apex Court has held that adjournments should ordinarily be limited to three/ four times in a suit. It is directed that no adjournment in the suit shall be granted unless an application therefor is filed giving out reasons to the trial court's satisfaction. When granted adjournments be short

¶14

¶15

and limited as far as possible to a week.

¶16

It is also clarified that the doctrine of lis pendis would apply to

¶17

the suit property.

¶18

The miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(Alok Sharma), J.

arn/

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

¶23

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Smt Sudha Kanwar v. Jai Singh Raghav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sudha Kanwar v. Jai Singh Raghav and Others

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

Sharwen Kumar Vs State

Dinesh Alias Babloo Vs State of Raj Asthan

Vimlesh Sisodiya Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

M/S Hanuman Prasad and Ors. Vs R S E B and Ors.

Mahesh Chand Modi Vs the Rajasthan State Cooperativ

Sushil Kumar Sarawagi Vs the Sub Registrar Co. Operative