Dismissed

Shri Govind Singh Alias Gom Singh S/O Shri Halu Singhji v. Shri Kalu Singh S/O Shri Kesar Singh

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2018CW/23435/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writ jurisdiction to quash a lower court order refusing to remove a sale agreement from records. Relying on other judgments, the petitioner argued admissions made by the respondent warranted removal. The High Court distinguished the cited precedents based on facts and declined to interfere under Article 227, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The writ application fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Shri Govind Singh Alias Gom Singh S/O… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 23435/2018

¶3

Shri Govind Singh Alias Gom Singh S/o Shri Halu Singhji, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Village Kalinjar, Tehsil Beawer, District Ajmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Kalu Singh S/o Shri Kesar Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Caste Rawat, R/o Village Rajiyawas, Tehsil Beawer, District Ajmer.

¶7

Smt. Ramli W/o Shri Govind Singh, By Caste Rawat, R/o Village Kalinjar, Tehsil Beawer, District Ajmer.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Ajmer.

¶9

Deputy Registrar, Beawer, Deputy Registrar Office, Beawer (Raj.)

¶10

Tehsildar Beawer, Tehsil Premises, Beawer (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶14

Order

¶15

29/11/2018

¶16

The petitioner – defendant is contesting the suit proceedings initiated by the plaintiff – respondent for specific performance of sale agreement dated 27^th August, 2013. He filed an application under Order 13 Rule 3 & 6 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to remove the document (sale agreement dated 27^th August, 2013), for the plaintiff – respondent in his crossexamination made certain admissions to the contrary. The Court below declined the application with the cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees:

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-23435/2018]

¶19

Two Hundred); leading to institution of the present writ application.

¶20

Referring to the opinions of Madras High Court in the case of S.M. Gopal Chetty v. Raman @ Nastesan & 7 Ors. : AIR 1998 Madras 169, and Lallu Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan : 2001 WLC (UC) 27; it is contended that once, an admission was made by the plaintiff – respondent to the contrary to the contents of the sale agreement dated 27^th August, 2013, reduced to writing; the document ought to have been removed from the record, granting the application of the petitioner – defendant.

¶21

On the query by the Court as to whether the document (sale agreement dated 27^th August, 2013), did bear signatures of the petitioner- defendant or not? the counsel for the petitioner – defendant replied that even if, the signatures on the alleged document is of the petitioner – defendant for the sake of argument; on the basis of the opinions referred to and relied upon (supra), the application ought to have been granted by the Court below.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the opinions referred to and relied upon so also critically examined the impugned order dated 10^th September, 2018.

¶23

The factum of signatures of the petitioner – defendant has not been denied or disputed. However, it is contended that even for the sake of argument, the document bears signatures of the petitioner; yet the claim staked for removal of document from the record, merits acceptance. The Court below taking note of the contents of the document (sale agreement dated 27^th August,

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-23435/2018]

¶26

2013), which was exhibited in the presence of the petitioner – defendant on 5^th May, 2018, declined the application.

¶27

Be that as it may, the opinions referred to and relied upon would reflect that those opinions have been rendered in entirely different and distinguishable in the backdrop of the factual matrix of those cases.

¶28

In view of the factual matrix and in conspicuous attendant facts of the case at hand, without expressing any opinion as to merits of the case before the Court below; this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

In the result, the writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶30

No costs.

¶31

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶32

SS/85

Shri Govind Singh Alias Gom Singh S/O Shri Halu Singhji v. Shri Kalu Singh S/O Shri Kesar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Govind Singh Alias Gom Singh S/O Shri Halu Singhji v. Shri Kalu Singh S/O Shri Kesar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vishnu Devi Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Prahlad S/O Kana Vs Bhooli Wife of Surajkaran

Anmol Sharma D/O Late Sh Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India

Radheyshyam Meena S/O Shri Jeevan Ram Meena Vs Shri Bhaskar a. Sawant Secretary Department of Personnel

Tapesh Kumar S/O Shri Daulatram Parashar Vs Shri Guru Singh Sabha Sanstha