Allowed

Shreemat Pandey v. Pradeep Jain and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2018CR/114/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Civil Revision, the High Court allowed the petition to quash the impugned appellate order allowing a plaintiff's appeal. The court held that the revision deserves allowance based on a mutual conciliation agreement and a subsequent trial court order that decided the underlying suit, rendering the revision moot.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed and disposed of in terms of the conciliation agreement and trial court order dated 13.09.2017.

Shreemat Pandey Vs Pradeep Jain and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision No. 114 / 2004

¶3

Shreemat Pandey, aged about 46 years, s/o Shri Sarju Pandey, by caste Brahmin, presently working as Secretary, Department of Information and Technology, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pradeep Jain S/o Ganga Bishan, resident of Nandel, at present C/O M/s G.B. Jain and sons, Sukhadia Circle, Udaipur.

¶7

Sumati Lal Bohra, presently working as Secretary, Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan at Ajmer, the then Additional Dist. Magistrate (Administration), Udaipur.

¶8

Mrs. Prashakha Mathur, IPS, presently working as S.P. GRP, Ajmer, the then SHO, Police Station Amba Mata, Udaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

03/04/2018

¶14

The petitioner has preferred this revision petition under

¶15

Section 115 CPC, claiming the following reliefs:

¶16

“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.

¶17

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.”

¶18

The matter comes up on an application for disposal of

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CR-114/2004]

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

“13. That the parties of the conciliation further agree that they shall submit the decree passed by the Lok 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. 08-01-2015 passed with the consent of both the parties and in light of the sanction letter No.P8(G)/Rule/DLB/13/29600, Jaipur dated 18-07-2017 of Govt. of Rajasthan and in light of the conciliation proposal dated 14-12-2016 and the letters of Municipal Corporation No.rajasva/ja/2016-17/61 dated 10-02-2017 and

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CR-114/2004]

¶27

No.rajasva/128/2017-18 dated 07-07-2017 addressed to the Director, Local Self, Govt. of Rajasthan; this conciliation agreement is being executed here with.”

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

However, the relevant documents i.e. the conciliation agreement and the order passed by the learned court below are on record as Annexure-A/1 and Annexure-A/3 of the revision petition.

¶32

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.

¶33

Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CR-114/2004]

¶36

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.

¶37

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶38

/zeeshan/

Shreemat Pandey v. Pradeep Jain and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreemat Pandey v. Pradeep Jain and Anr.

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

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.

Sumati Lal Bohra and Anr. Vs Pradeep Jain