Allowed

Shyokaran and Ors. v. Sukhdev and Anr.

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2018CR/129/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the Allahabad High Court's quashing of a district court order dismissing a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failure to implead the State Government. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to review changed litigation facts. The revision petition was allowed, reinstating the original dismissal of the plaint.

What did the court decide?

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order setting aside the district court's dismissal of the plaint and restored the impugned order.

Shyokaran and Ors. Vs Sukhdev and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ihB] t;iqj

¶3

vkns'k

¶4

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 129/2018

¶5

1- ';ksdj.k iq= Jh jkeukFk tkfr [kkjksy

¶6

2- fd'kuyky iq= Jh ';ksdj.k tkfr [kkjksy

¶7

3- Hkaojyky iq= Jh ';ksdj.k tkfr [kkjksy

¶8

fuoklhx.k [kkjksyksa dk eksgYyk xzke xksikyiqjk ¼[kokl½ rglhy dsdMh] ftyk&vtesj

cuke

1- lq[knso iq= Jh xksdy [kkjksy tkfr [kkjksy fuoklh xzke xksikyiqjk ¼[kokl½ rglhy dsdMh] ftyk&vtesj

¶12

&&&vizkFkhZ@oknh

¶13

2- Jheku mi iath;d egksn;] mi iath;d dk;kZy; dknsMk] rglhy dsdMh] ftyk&vtesjA

&&&vizkFkhZ@izfroknh

vkns'k fnukad %

18-07-2018

ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh cuokjhyky 'kekZ

¶18

Jh dSyk'kpUnz 'kekZ] vf/koDrk&;kph dh vksj lsA

¶19

;kph@izfroknh us ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k dsdMh] ftyk&vtesj }kjk izdj.k nhokuh okn la[;k 44@2018 ¼lq[knso cuke ';ksdj.k o vU;½ esa ikfjr vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 13-04-2018 ds fo:) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;kph&izfroknh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- dks vLohdkj dj fn;kA

¶20

izdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSa fd izR;FkhZ@oknh us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k nhokuh okn ckcr~ lafonk dh fof'k"V vuqikyuk] ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk is'k fd;k] ftlds lEeu ;[email protected] dks rkehy gksus ds ckn mudh vksj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k ,d izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- dk is'k dj okni= dks fujLr

¶21

-2-

¶22

fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA ftls fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vkyksP; vkns'k ds }kjk vLohdkj dj fn;kA ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;[email protected] us ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk bl U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k dh gSA

¶23

vf/koDrk ;kphx.k us fuosnu fd;k gS fd oknhx.k us okni= esa tks vuqrks"k pkgs gSa rFkk tks i{kdkj cuk;s gSa] mlesa izfroknh la[;k&4 mi&iath;d dknsMk rglhy&dsdMh tks fd yksd&vf/kdkjh gS rFkk yksd vf/kdkjh ds fo:) okn is'k fd;k gSA vr% flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj dks i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vko';d gSA fdUrq jkT; ljdkj dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA blfy, okn iks"k.kh; ugha gSA

¶24

mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd izfroknh la[;k&1 oknh ds i{k esa dksbZ bdjkjukek rgjhj ugha fd;k x;k rFkk oknh@izR;FkhZ }kjk izLrqr bdjkjukek feF;k o voS/k gSA dfFkr bdjkjukek esa of.kZr gS fd rRle; izo`r fof/k ds vuqlkj fodz;i= iath;u ugha gks ldrk Fkk vkSj okni= dh pj.k la[;k&5 esa Hkh mDr dFku of.kZr gSA dksbZ Hkh fof/k Hkwry{kh ugha gksrh gS tc rd fd fof/k vuqlkj of.kZr u gksA bl dkj.k oknh dk okn fof/k&vuqlkj iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; Fkk] fdUrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us okni= fujLr ugha dj ;kph dk vkosnu vLohdkj djus esa =qfV dh gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd okni= esa oknh dk dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu ugh gksrk gSA vr% fuxjkuh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; vkns'k vikLr fd;k tkos rFkk ;[email protected] }kjk izLrqr vkosnu vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj fd;k tkosA

¶25

lquk x;k] izLrqr rdksaZ ij fopkj fd;k x;kA

¶26

vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- esa okn i= fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq fuEu vk/kkj crk;s gSa&

¶27

“Rejection of plaint

¶28

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

¶29

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶30

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to

¶31

-3-

¶32

supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶33

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]

¶34

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:

¶35

[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]”

¶36

mDr izko/kku ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds fuLrkj.k ds le; U;k;ky; dks flQZ oknh }kjk okni= esa fd;s x;s vfHkopu ij fopkj djuk gksrk gSA vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij ;fn mijksDr vk/kkj izdV ugh gksrs gSa rks okn dks fujLr fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶37

gLrxr izdj.k esa ;kph us igyh vkifRr vkns'k 27 fu;e 5¼d½ lh-ih-lh- ds laca/k esa mBk;h gS tks fuEu izdkj gS&

¶38

“ To be joined as a party in Suit against a public Officer : Where a suit is instituted against a public officer for damages or other relief in respect of any act alleged to have been done by him in his official capacity, the Government shall be joinde as a party to the suit.”

¶39

mDr izko/kku ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd ;fn fdlh yksd vf/kdkjh ds fo:) Msest vFkok vU; fdlh vuqrks"k gsrq mlds yksd drZO; ds fuoZgu ds lacaf/kr okn is'k fd;k tkrk gS rks jkT; ljdkj dks i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vko';d gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa okni= ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd jkT; ljdkj ds fo:) dksbZ {kfriwfrZ ugha pkgh x;h gS vkSj uk gh dksbZ vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa jkT; dks i{kdkj ugha cukus ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr okni= fujLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vU;Fkk Hkh vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds mijksDr izko/kku esa i{kdkj ds vla;kstu ds vk/kkj ij okni= fujLr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj ugha gSA vr% bl vk/kkj ij okni= fujLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

¶40

-4-

¶41

ogka rd okn ds Hkwry{kh izHkko dk iz'u gS] bl vk/kkj ij Hkh okn dk otZu ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj blds vk/kkj ij Hkh vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa dsd rgr okni= fujLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

¶42

;kphx.k dh vksj ls rhljk vk/kkj okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gksuk crk;k gSA ftlds laca/k esa v;kph@oknh us okni= dh en la[;k&12 esa Li"V vfHkopu fd;k gS fd ^^okni= izLrqr djus dk ewy dkj.k loZizFke ceqdke xzke xksikyiqjk ¼[kokl½ rglhy dsdMh esa fnukad 31-05-2016 dks tc izfroknh la[;k&1 us ;g tkurs gq, Hkh fd okni= ds iSjk la-&1 esa of.kZr vkjkth;kr dk 1@2 fgLlk oknh dks cspku fd;k gqvk gS] vkjkth;kr dks drbZ xyr] >waBs ,oa QthZ voS/k 'kwU; nkui= ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh la[;k&2 o 3 dks gLrkUrfjr dj fn;k ,oa fnukad 09-11-2017 dks tc oknh us izfroknh dks uksfVl izsf"kr fd;k rFkk dfFkr uksfVl izfroknh dks rkehy gqvk] ijUrq izfroknh }kjk okn of.kZr vkjkth;kr ds 1@2 fgLls ds fodz;i= dk iath;u oknh ds gd esa ugha djok;k x;kA mijksDr of.kZr dkj.ko'k mRiUu gqvk o fnu izfrfnu mRiUu gks jgk gSA^^ dgk gSA ftlls ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd okni= ds voyksdu ls okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gqvk gksA

¶43

bl LVst ij vf/koDrk ;kphx.k us fuosnu fd;k gS fd v;kph@oknh us u rks uksfVl rFkk uk gh jlhn is'k dh gSA ftlds laca/k esa bruk dguk i;kZIr gS fd uksfVl vFkok jlhn is'k ugha djus ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr okni= dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha gS rFkk izLrqr rdksaZ ds vk/kkj ij bl fuxjkuh ;kfpdk esa dksbZ lkj ugha ik;k tkrk gSA

¶44

rnuqlkj ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk lkjghu gksus ds vk/kkj ij vLohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; vkns'k dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDr izdkj ls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA

¶45

¼cuokjh yky 'kekZ½ U;k;kf/kifr

¶46

feRry@51

Shyokaran and Ors. v. Sukhdev and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyokaran and Ors. v. Sukhdev 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

Sunita Shukla Vs Bhagwati Devi and Ors.

Jagdish Naryan Jeman Vs Ram Swaroop and Ors.

National Highway Authority of India Vs Arbitrator-Distt Collector Jaipur and Ors.

Hari Singh Yadav Vs Bishamber Dayal

U O I through Chief Admn Officer Railway Vs M/S Giriraj Civil Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Arjun@Bablu S/O Madanlal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp