Partly allowed

Swastik Trading Co. v. Jasmit Singh Atwal

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2016CR/45/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision against an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court held that the trial court's order was devoid of reasons. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition allowed. The impugned order set aside. The matter remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Swastik Trading Co. Vs Jasmit Singh Atwal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

CIVIL REVISION (CR)NO.45 OF 2016

¶2

SWASTIK TRADING COMPANY VS. JASMIT SINGH

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION (CR) NO.45 OF 2016

¶6

SWASTIK TRADING COMPANY

¶7

VS.

¶8

JASMIT SINGH ATWAL

¶9

Date of Order:- 17.8.16.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.

¶11

Mr.Pritam Solanki, for the petitioner. Mr.Dhanesh Sarsawat, for the respondent.

¶12

This petition is directed against order dated

¶13

16.3.16 of the Additional District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, in Civil Suit No.42/15, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stands rejected.

¶14

The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,31,718/-. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff who is labour contractor was given contract by the petitioner-defendant for installing

¶15

¶16

CIVIL REVISION (CR)NO.45 OF 2016

¶17

SWASTIK TRADING COMPANY VS. JASMIT SINGH

¶18

Fire Alarm Systems at different construction sites. After completion of the work as per the oral agreement, the plaintiff submitted his seven bills for the period from January, 2014 to March, 2014, amounting to Rs.8,40,120/- showing labour charges as per the rates settled including TDS payable a sum of Rs.8,402/- and accordingly, while deducting the amount of TDS, the amount sought to be recovered is shown to be a sum of Rs.8,31,718/-.

¶19

The petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint stating that the suit as framed does not fall within the ambit and scope of Order XXXVII and therefore, deserves to be rejected.

¶20

The application preferred stands rejected by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the trial court has rejected the application preferred by passing a cryptic order without

¶22

¶23

CIVIL REVISION (CR)NO.45 OF 2016

¶24

SWASTIK TRADING COMPANY VS. JASMIT SINGH

¶25

considering the relevant aspects of the matter and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly conceded that the order passed by the trial court is not supported by reasons.

¶27

Indisputably, the order of the court must be self contained with reasons for conclusion arrived at. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that it contains no reason for conclusion arrived at. The court below has merely recorded its ipse dixit that from the perusal of the plaint and Order XXXVII Rule 1, it is apparent that the suit is maintainable. In absence of the reasons for conclusion arrived at, it is not possible to discern what weighed with the trial court in arriving at the decision which is assailed as being erroneous. Obviously, in absence of the reasons, the aggrieved party also stands deprived of an opportunity to demonstrate before this court that the reasons which

¶28

¶29

CIVIL REVISION (CR)NO.45 OF 2016

¶30

SWASTIK TRADING COMPANY VS. JASMIT SINGH

¶31

persuaded the trial court in taking decision adverse to it, are erroneous.

¶32

Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration afresh.

¶33

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.3.16 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, is set aside. The matter shall stand remanded to the trial court for consideration of the application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC afresh, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶34

(SANGEET LODHA),J.

¶35

Aditya/

Swastik Trading Co. v. Jasmit Singh Atwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swastik Trading Co. v. Jasmit Singh Atwal

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

M/S Bharat Explochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs None

M/S Navbharat Explochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs None

Dr. Ramswaroop Choudhary Vs Maharana Pratap Uni. of Ag. and Tec. and Ors.

Krishna Lal Sidana Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Shree Balaji Traders and Ors. Vs Vikas Wsp Limited and Anr.

Mahendra Meghwal Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and Ors.