Dismissed

State and Ors. v. Ram Kishan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 May 2018CSA/643/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a second appeal against an injunction decree. The appeal was previously dismissed in part due to procedural lapses and abatement. The Court found no substantial question of law, as the matter involved factual findings and affirmed the finality of the decree against some respondents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no relief granted to the appellants.

State and Ors. Vs Ram Kishan and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 643 / 2011

¶4

State of Rajasthan through the Collector, Bhilwara.

¶5

The Dy. Chief Medical & Health Officer (Malaria), Bhilwara.

¶6

The Director, Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Appellants/Defendants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ram Kishan s/o Sher Singh Verma, Retd. Malaria Inspector, Jhaajpur, District Bhilwara. At present r/o village and post Petwara Tehsil Hanja District Hissar (Haryana).

¶9

Swaroop Chand s/o Mishrilal Modi Retd. Malaria Inspector r/o village and post Bijolai, District Bhilwara.

¶10

Sugan Chand s/o Kanhaiyalal, Retd. Malaria Inspector, Kotadi, Distt. Bhilwara. At present r/o Near Maharani Takies, Bhilwara.

¶11

Kanhaiyalal s/o Nand Kishore Sharma, Retd. Malaria Inspector, Kachola, Distt. Bhilwara. At present r/o Pawa Mohalla, Near Khara Kuan, Gulmandi, Bhilwara.

¶12

Nathulal s/o Chagganlal Oza, Malaria Inspector, Rayala, Distt. Bhilwara. ----Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶13

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shweta Bora on behalf of Mr. Anil Bissa.

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

02/05/2018

¶17

The present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendants-appellants laying

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CSA-643/2011]

¶20

challenge to the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 9/2001 whereby, the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2001, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, had been allowed.

¶21

The learned Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to 5 herein) decreed the suit and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount mentioned in para 6 of the plaint. The said amount was sought to be recovered by the defendants from the plaintiffs, pursuant to the internal audit objection raised for the period April, 1987 to March, 1988. The Appellate Court had further declared the audit objection dated 26.08.1991 and 06.12.1991 raised by the defendants No. 2 and 3, to be illegal and void.

¶22

It is to be noticed that the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.08.2002 was passed by the Appellate Court in an appeal jointly filed by the five plaintiffs, being respondents No. 1 to 5 herein.

¶23

The present second appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 20.08.2002 had been filed before this Court on 17.01.2003 with a delay of 50 days and since then, the appeal is languishing in this Court.

¶24

Though this Court had issued notices of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 05.05.2006, yet even the notices of Section 5 application have not been served upon the respondents so far.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CSA-643/2011]

¶27

Pursuant to a peremptory order dated 07.03.2014 passed by this Court, requiring the appellants to file PF and Notices, as needful was not done, the present appeal had been dismissed qua respondents No. 1 and 5.

¶28

During the pendency of the appeal, it has been reported that the respondent No. 4 has expired. As no steps had been taken for substitution of his legal representatives, the present appeal against the respondent No.4 has been held to have abated, qua respondent No.4, vide order dated 19.05.2015.

¶29

In view of the above, the present appeal has already been dismissed against the respondents No. 1, 4 and 5.

¶30

Looking to the nature of the decree and the fact that as against the three plaintiffs, the present appeal has been rejected, therefore, the present appeal qua remaining plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 cannot continue, as the decree under challenge has been affirmed and attained finality. If the appeal against the remaining plaintiffs is heard and allowed, it would result in passing conflicting decrees.

¶31

Apart from the above, even on merit and taking into consideration the material available on record, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal, as the grounds raised and the questions proposed, revolves around findings of fact, which cannot be said to be perverse.

¶32

As a result of above, the appeal is dismissed.

¶33

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶34

/Mohan/128

State and Ors. v. Ram Kishan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State and Ors. v. Ram Kishan and Ors.

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

Om Prakash Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Kanhaiya Lal and Ors. Vs Smt. Sohan Kumari and Ors.

Mal Chand Vs Hari Ram

Riico. Ltd. Vs Heera and Ors.

Khangar Singh Vs Hajari Mal and Ors.

Smt. Yasmeen Pathan Vs Mohammed Sajeed Khan