Disposed

Jagdish v. Sardara

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2018CMA/1688/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the lower appellate court's order remanding a specific performance suit back to the trial court due to non-joinder of parties, which had led to the suit's dismissal. The High Court found no prejudice to the appellants from the remand and directed the trial court to decide the suit afresh within one year.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to decide the suit afresh within one year; appeal and stay application disposed of.

Jagdish Vs Sardara — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1688 / 2004

¶3

Jagdish son of Deep Singh

¶4

Hukum Singh

¶5

Anip Singh

¶6

Jai Singh

¶7

All legal heirs of late Shri Laxmi Narayan Son of Shri Deep Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of Sainthli, Tehsil and District, Alwar.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Sardarapal Yadav son Sardar.

¶11

Malta Daughter of Sardara.

¶12

Mamtosh daughter of Sardara.

¶13

Pappi daughter of Sardara.

¶14

Sushila daughter of Sardara.

¶15

Billo daughter of Sardara By Caste Yadav resident of Sainthli Tehsil and district Alwar.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Counsel with Mr. Aditya Mathur.

¶18

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Yadav with Ms. Priyanka.

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶20

Judgment

¶21

11/01/2018

¶22

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2004 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar in Civil Appeal No.3/2003 by which the learned lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent and cross objections submitted by the defendant/appellant and judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 11.12.2002 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the suit afresh after providing opportunity to plaintiff to implead all the necessary parties in the suit.

¶23

(2 of 3)

¶24

[CMA-1688/2004]

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit before the learned trial court for specific performance of contract against the defendant-appellants. The learned trial court on the basis of issue no.5 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has not impleaded the necessary parties in the suit and the suit was dismissed on account of non-joinder of parties.

¶26

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2002 passed by the trial court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the lower appellate court and cross objections were also filed by the defendant-appellants in relation to issues decided against them. The learned Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.07.2004 allowed the appeal as well as cross objections and directed the learned trial court to decide the suit afresh after giving opportunity to the plaintiff to implead all the necessary parties in the suit.

¶27

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the learned lower appellate court is bad in the eye of law and learned appellate court should not have remanded the matter back to the trial court as the basic issue no. 5 was rightly decided against the plaintiff by the trial court.

¶28

On the other hand counsel for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court.

¶29

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶30

I have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant and I find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant since the learned lower appellate court has only

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

[CMA-1688/2004]

¶33

remanded the matter back to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh.

¶34

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to direct the trial court to decide the pending suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. The learned trial court is further directed to give finding on all the issues afresh without prejudice to earlier order.

¶35

The appeal as well as stay application stand disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court. Record of the trial court be sent back.

¶36

(INDERJEET SINGH),J.

¶37

Mohit Grover/Sr. No.09.

Jagdish v. Sardara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. Sardara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Lal Prajapat Vs Union of India and Ors.

Deenaram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Kanchan Varidani Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramhari Vs Deewan Singh

Kushal Chand Bader and Ors. Vs Chetna Sharma and Anr.

Surendra Singh Vs State and Ors.