Dismissed

Gulam Ziyauddin @ Kallu S/O Syeduddin v. Ajijudin S/O Nijamuddin

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2018CW/14221/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a Civil Writ Petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting a belated application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. The court found no perversity in the lower court's refusal to admit a commission report filed 29 years late.

What did the court decide?

No interference granted; the appellant-respondent's application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC is upheld; writ petition dismissed.

Gulam Ziyauddin @ Kallu S/O Syeduddin Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

ORDER

¶4

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14221/2018)

¶5

Gulam Ziyauddin @ Kallu S/o Syeduddin, Madarsa Molana, Ziyauddin, age 65 years, R/o Rasta Jagannath Shah, Jaipur.

¶6

Zinul Abdin @ Mehmood Miya S/o Fakhruddin R/o Dargah Molana, Ziyauddin, Outside Char Darwaja, Jaipur.

¶7

--- Defendant-Applicant- petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ajijudin S/o Nijamuddin (now deceased) by caste Musalman, Secretary Maszid Molana Ziyauddin Sahab Handpur Rasta Jagannaath Shah, Chaukari Ramchandraji, Jaipur through legal heir.

¶10

1/1 Abdul Kalam S/o Abdul Salam authorized representative Wakf Board House No. 4632 Rasta jagannath Shah, Handipura, Jaipur.

¶11

--- Plaintiff-Non-applicant-Respondent

¶12

2Abdul Rasheed @ Chand S/o Sh. Abdulla Khan R/o House No.4601, Rasta Jagannath Shah, Jaipur

¶13

--- Defendant-Non-applicant-Respondent

¶14

Date of Order: July 10, 2018.

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶17

Mr. Asgar Khan, for the petitioner.

¶18

BY THE COURT :

¶19

The petitioners-defendants (hereinafter `the defendant') are

¶20

aggrieved of the order dated 5-5-2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.1 Jaipur in suit No.281/1989 dismissing the defendant's application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC for taking on record the Commissioner's report dated 7-91989.

¶21

Heard counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned

¶22

¶23

order dated 5-5-2018.

¶24

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the defendant sought to be taken on record after a delay of 29 years the Commissioner's report dated 7-9-1989. That was already a part of the application for temporary injunction, and signed by both parties and their counsel. Therefore the trial court negated the defendant's contention to explain away the delay stating that the Commissioner's report dated 7-9-1989 was not in his knowledge. Consequently treating the defendant's application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC as moved after inordinate delay only to obstruct the proceeding in the suit, which was at the stage of final arguments and delay it, it dismissed the same.

¶25

I find no perversity, patent illegality, misdirection in law or

¶26

error of jurisdiction in the discretion exercised by the trial court in its well considered and reasoned order to warrant interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

There is no force in the petition. Dismissed.

¶28

arn/

¶29

¶30

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶31

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Gulam Ziyauddin @ Kallu S/O Syeduddin v. Ajijudin S/O Nijamuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Ziyauddin @ Kallu S/O Syeduddin v. Ajijudin S/O Nijamuddin

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

Kusumlata Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vikram Singh Nathwatandanr Vs State Education Dep Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Amit Kumar Patidar S/O Shri Ramgopal Patidar Vs the State of Rajasthan through Principle Secretary

Dinesh Kumar Meena and Ors. Vs State Education Departmentors

Dayaram and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.