Petitioner sought to withdraw a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and clarified that trial court observations would not obstruct future suit rights.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned order and liberty to file a suit asserting rights to suit property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1784/2018
Rao Devi Singh S/o Late Rao Gajendra Singh, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Duni House, Behind Mayur Towers, Natanion Ka Rasta Jaipur Rajasthan
----Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
...Respondents/Plaintiffs
All R/o House No.1866, Duni House, Film Colony, Nataniyon Ka Rasta, Nehru Bazar, Jaipur Rajasthan, At Present R/o Plot No., Ram Nagar, Near Chakki, Sitaram Colony, Hanuman Ji Ka Mandir, Sodala, Jaipur Rajasthan
----Respondents/Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vishnu Kumar
(2 of 3)
[CW-1784/2018]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
07/03/2018
Counsel for the petitioner-applicant submitted that he be allowed to withdraw this petition challenging the order dated 7.9.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in a suit for partition has been dismissed with liberty to the applicant to take his proceedings in respect of the suit property as may be available to him in law. He submitted that, it also be made clear that any observations of the trial court while dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC under the impugned order would not obstruct the suit filed by the applicant, if so advised, qua the suit property.
On the submission of counsel for the petitionerapplicant this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 7.9.2017.
It is however made clear that any observations in the impugned order dated 7.9.2017 would not obstruct the rights of the petitioner-applicant, in the event he files a suit asserting his rights to the suit property. It is also equally made clear that in the event of the suit being filed, the defendant/s impleaded would be free to take all legal and factual defences and the trial court seized of the matter would be free to adjudicate the suit on the facts and evidences laid before it, without being influenced by the liberty sought and granted by this Court to the petitioner-applicant to
(3 of 3)
[CW-1784/2018]
take his remedy in accordance with law.
(ALOK SHARMA) J.
Himanshu/127
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Whether the observations in the impugned order dismissing the impleadment application would obstruct the rights of the petitioner-applicant in a subsequent suit for partition.
Whether the impleaded parties would be free to take all legal and factual defences in an event of a suit filed by the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rao Devi Singh
Devendra Singh
Smt. Rashmi Rathore
Smt. Prem Rathore
Shri Sumer Singh
Shri Shyam Singh
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
