Allowed

Ramesh Kumar v. Ashok Kumar

Rajasthan HC17 May 2018CW/100/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting prayers regarding registration and stamping of a rent note in a possession suit. The High Court held these core issues must be decided at the threshold and allowed the writ petition, quashing the order and remanding the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11.05.2017 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned court below to decide the issue of registration and stamp duty at the threshold itself.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 100 / 2018

¶3

Ramesh Kumar Son of Shri Shiv Ram, By Caste Raval, Resident of Revdar, District Sirohi (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ashok Kumar Son of Shri Tara Chand, By Caste Jain, Mandar Tehsil Revdar, District Sirohi (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shambhavi Mardia for Mr. Sandeep Shah

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

17/05/2018

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming

¶14

the following reliefs:

¶15

“(i) The impugned order dated 11.05.2017 (Annex.4) may kindly be set aside and quashed.

¶16

(ii) The objection/application dated 11.05.2017 may kindly be ordered to be allowed.

¶17

(iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deem just fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶18

The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act while serving notice under Section 106 against the petitioner-defendant in respect of shop in question.

¶19

The issue before this Court today is that the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioners regarding

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CW-100/2018]

¶22

deciding the issues pertaining to the registration and stamping of the document i.e. rent note vide order dated 11.05.2017.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the aforementioned issue has to be decided at the threshold itself.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents refutes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court in the present factual matrix is of the opinion that the issue pertaining to registration and stamp duty being core issues, were required to be decided by the learned court below at the threshold itself, rather than postponing the same for final stage.

¶25

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11.05.2017, the matter is remanded to the learned court below to decide the issue as aforementioned at this stage itself. However, in the interest of justice, the learned court below is directed to expedite the proceedings of the case.

¶26

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶27

/zeeshan/

Ramesh Kumar v. Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. Ashok Kumar

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

Naresh Kumar Parmar and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Basant Lal Katara and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Jeena Vs Chief Manager P.N.B. Sgnr and Ors.

Hemendra Puri Vs J.N.v.University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Niranjan Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Chhail Singh Vs State and Ors.