Allowed

Sumati Lal Bohra and Anr. v. Pradeep Jain

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2018CR/112/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Civil Revision No. 112/2004, the High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a revision petition claiming quashing of an appellate order dated 28.02.2004. Citing a sister revision petition decided the same day, the Court allowed the present petition based on a mutual conciliation agreement and the trial court's subsequent order dismissing the original suit.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed and disposed of terms of the conciliation agreement dated 01.09.2017 and the trial court order dated 13.09.2017; the impugned order dated 28.02.2004 is quashed.

Sumati Lal Bohra and Anr. Vs Pradeep Jain — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision No. 112 / 2004

¶3

Sumati Lal Bohra, the then Addl. District Collector (Admn), Udaipur (presently working as Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer.)

¶4

Dr. Prashakha Mathur, The then SHO, Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur (presently) working as Superintendent of Police (Ajmer).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Pradeep Jain s/o Ganga Bishan, resident of Nander, at present M/s. G.B. & Sons, Sukhariya circile, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Shreemat Pandey, the then District Collector, Udaipur (presently posted as Secretary to Govt. of Rajasthan, Department of Information Technology Government, Secretariat, Jaipur)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.D. Dadhich

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

03/04/2018

¶15

The petitioners have preferred this revision petition

¶16

under Section 115 CPC, claiming the following reliefs:

¶17

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.27/2002 (94/2002) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶18

Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CR-112/2004]

¶21

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that this revision petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Shreemat Pandey Vs. Pradeep Jain & Ors.

¶22

(S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.114/2004) decided on 03.04.2018 , which reads as under:

¶23

“1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 CPC, claiming the following reliefs:

¶24

“It is, therefore, prayed that the record of the case may be called and the judgment and order dated 28.02.2004 delivered by the Additional Dist. Judge No.3, Udaipur in appeal No.27/2002 may kindly be set aside and the appeal filed by the non-petitioner No.1 (applicants) may be ordered to be rejected. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

2. The matter comes up on an application for disposal of the revision petition against the impugned order, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff, against rejection of the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, was allowed.

¶26

3. Mr. M.S.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Akhilesh Rajpurohit for the petitioner submits that a mutual compromise, in the form of conciliation agreement, has been arrived at between G.B. Jain & Sons and the State Government before the Alternate Disputes Resolution (ADR) Centre, Udaipur on 01.09.2017. Thus, the parties are bound by the said conciliation agreement.

¶27

4. For ready reference, the relevant clause-13 of the aforementioned conciliation agreement reads as under:

¶28

“13. That the parties of the conciliation further agree that they shall submit the decree passed by the Lok

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

[CR-112/2004]

¶31

Adalat in the different cases arising out of the agreement dated 04.05.1992 related to this dispute and help each other in finishing off all the cases including the following cases such as Suit 43/2013 before ADJ 5, Udaipur, Case no.218/1998 pending before Civil Judge Udaipur, S.B. Civil Revision Petition Nos.112/ and 114 pending in High Court, CW 6021/2015 and CW 1253/2013 and CW 12245/2015 before Hon’ble HC and all other cases civil and criminal nature and after the decree passed by the Lok Adalat no issues and disputes and cases remains between the parties. That in complete reverence to the expectations of the Hon’ble Court in favour of conciliation as reflected from the order dt. 08-012015 passed with the consent of both the parties and in light of the sanction letter No.P8(G)/Rule/DLB/13/29600, Jaipur dated 18-072017 of Govt. of Rajasthan and in light of the conciliation proposal dated 14-12-2016 and the letters of Municipal Corporation No.rajasva/ja/201617/61 dated 10-02-2017 and No.rajasva/128/201718 dated 07-07-2017 addressed to the Director, Local Self, Govt. of Rajasthan; this conciliation agreement is being executed here with.”

¶32

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further states that in view of the aforesaid conciliation agreement, a joint application has been filed by the parties on 13.09.2017 before the learned Civil Judge (North), Udaipur in Original Suit No.218/1998, and in terms of the said application dated 13.09.2017, the learned court below has decided the suit itself vide its order dated 13.09.2017.

¶33

6. Fresh notices were issued to the contesting respondents and the service is complete.

¶34

7. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶35

8. However, the relevant documents i.e. the conciliation agreement and the order passed by the learned

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

[CR-112/2004]

¶38

court below are on record as Annexure-A/1 and AnnexureA/3 of the revision petition.

¶39

9. After hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since the suit itself has been decided by the learned court below vide its order dated 13.09.2017, therefore, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of, in terms of the aforementioned conciliation agreement dated 01.09.2017 and the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned trial court.

¶40

10. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed and disposed of, in terms of the aforementioned conciliation agreement dated 01.09.2017 and the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned trial court, while quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.02.2004 passed in Appeal No.27/2002 by the appellate court of learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur.”

¶41

In light of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the present revision petition is also disposed of in the same terms.

¶42

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶43

/zeeshan/

Sumati Lal Bohra and Anr. v. Pradeep Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumati Lal Bohra and Anr. v. Pradeep Jain

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

Dr. Bhabuti Lal Meena Vs the Vice Chancellor, Jnvu Jodhpur and Anr.

Kamlendra Singh Vs State and Ors.

Paras Mal Vs the Additional Civil Judge and Ors.

Tara Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ashok Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Shreemat Pandey Vs Pradeep Jain and Anr.