The Single Bench held that an SBCR application is infructuous when the underlying writ petition's underlying suit is finally decided. The Court directed the refund of Rs.10,000 security deposited for cost security as no respondent appeared.
Refund of Rs.10,000 security deposit towards cost to the petitioner. Application disposed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL RESTORATION APPLICATION NO. 60/2013
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9097/2006
Smt.Susheela Devi W/o shri Murari Lal aged about 56 years, by caste Mahajan, R/o Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar.
...Plaintiff-Petitioner
Versus
1/1. Padma Devi W/o Lt. Shri Gopal Das
1/2. Rajkumar S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Das
Both R/o Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar. 1/3. Radha Devi D/o Lt. Gopal Das W/o Jai kishan, R/o Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
1/4. Rameshwari Devi D/o Lt. Gopal Das W/o Shri Ramchand, R/o Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
1/5. Devi Bai D/o Lt. Gopal Das W/o Shri Hundal Das, R/o Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
1/6. Versha Devi D/o Lt. Gopal Das, Khairthal,
1/7. Mukta Devi D/o Lt. Gopal Das, W/o Shir Deewan Chand, R/o Gumanpura, Kota.
All R/o Khairthal, District Alwar.
...Defendant-respondents
...Proforma-respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Abhi Goyal.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
13/09/2017
Mr.Abhi Goyal counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for restoration in the petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the underlying suit having been finally
(2 of 2)
[WRES-60/2013]
decided. He submitted that the application for restoration be accordingly disposed of.
Mr. Abhi Goyal, however further submitted that while issuing notice on the main writ petition this court had directed deposit of Rs.10,000/- as security towards cost. That was done. He submitted that however despite notices being issued to the respondent-defendant none has appeared. Mr. Abhi Goyal submitted that in this view of the facts obtaining it be directed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- as security towards cost be refunded to the petitioner.
Having heard Mr.Abhi Goyal it is directed as under:-
2.The amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited under direction of this Court as security towards cost in the underlying SBCWP No.9097/2006 be refunded to the petitioner.
(ALOK SHARMA) J.
Karan/33
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a restoration application stands infructuous when the underlying suit is finally decided.
Whether security money deposited towards cost in an underlying writ petition must be refunded when no respondent appears.
How to dispose of a restoration application rendered infructuous due to the finality of the underlying matter.
Smt. Susheela Devi
Padma Devi and others
Civil Judge, Kishangarh Bas
Allo k Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
