Partly allowed

Om Singh v. Dhirendra Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2018CW/5145/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of single judge order dismissing application for police assistance under Section 151 CPC while contempt proceedings were pending. Court dismissed writ but partly allowed relief, quashing impugned order and permitting fresh application after contempt appeal finalization.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 10.08.2009 quashed and set aside; petitioner allowed to file fresh application under Section 151 CPC after final adjudication of contempt appeal.

Om Singh Vs Dhirendra Singh and Ors. — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 5145/2016

Om Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

Dhirendra Singh And Ors

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8449/2009

Om Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

Dhirendra And Anr.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Gehlot For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Bhoot Mr. KC Pitawat

¶16

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶17

Order

¶18

07/08/2018

¶19

SBCWP No.5145/2016

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the

¶21

writ petition.

¶22

The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶23

SBCWP No.5145/2016

¶24

The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition is

¶25

seeking the following reliefs :-

¶26

“a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 26.3.2016 (Annex.15) be set aside.

¶27

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the application dated 12.12.2014 (Annex.14) for dismissal of the suit be allowed and the suit of the respondents no.1 &

¶28

[CW-5145/2016]

¶29

(2 of 4)

¶30

2 be also dismissed.

¶31

c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon`ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶32

d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”

¶33

The respondents (sons) filed a suit against the petitioner (father) for partition, permanent injunction and possession. The order of temporary injunction culminated into an order in favour of petitioner on 13.11.2009. On refusing to abide by the order of temporary injunction, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking police assistance for compliance of the said order. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned court below on 10.8.2009 vide Annex.5, operative portion of the order reads as follows :-

¶34

^^11mijksDr leLr foospu ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqpk gwa fd bl U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 02-06-07 dks nksuksa i{kdkjku dks oknxzLr lEifr dh ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kus gsrq vkns”k ikfjr fd;k x;k vkSj bl vkns”k dh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iqf"V dh xbZ gSA vr% mijksDr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, oknxzLr lEifr esa yxs gq, rkys [kqyokus ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds i{k esa iqfyl benkn fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS D;ksafd ,slk fd, tkus ls bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kus ds vkns”k esa ifjorZu djuk gksxkA vr% mijksDrkuqlkj izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 151 lhihlh [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA**

¶35

Counsel for the petitioner state that police assistance was necessary to make compliance, however, both the parties agree to the fact that after non-compliance of interim order, the respondent contemnors were punished with civil imprisonment in

¶36

[CW-5145/2016]

¶37

(3 of 4)

¶38

a Contempt Petition No.535/2009 and against that a D.B. Special Appeal (Contempt) No.543/2013 is pending, in which, following order has been passed by this Court on 08.7.2016 :-

¶39

“Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellants have already vacated the entire ground floor and that is now under absolute possession of the respondent. He ensures that entry to ground floor from door-X shown in map (Exhibit-B) available at page 165 of the paper-book shall remain open and the appellants in no manner shall create any hindrance or disturbance in entry of the respondent to the ground floor through this door. It is stated that the door aforesaid is not locked, however, this fact has been disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶40

Having considered all the facts stated, we deem it appropriate to direct as under :-

¶41

1. The appellant shall unlock door-X shown in map (Exhibit-B) and the same shall not at all be locked by the appellants.

¶42

2. The appellant shall not create any type of hindrance or disturbance in relation to entry of the respondent, his wife and other guests from doorX.

¶43

3. The appellants may use main door shown at Point-E in map at page 165 to use the staircase for using first floor of the house.

¶44

Put up on 10.8.2016.”

¶45

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in light of Division Bench order dated 08.7.2016 as well as looking into the fact of pendency of contempt petition, this Court finds that any order made by this Single Bench of this Court for compliance of order would not be appropriate at this stage. However, the petitioner’s right of police assistance, can be determined only after final adjudication of contempt petition by the Hon`ble Division Bench in its aforesaid order, hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. The order impugned dated 10.8.2009 (Annex.5) is quashed and set aside with a direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application afresh under Section 151 CPC after final adjudication of D.B. Special Appeal (Contempt) No.543/2013. Such an application shall be

¶46

[CW-5145/2016]

¶47

(4 of 4)

¶48

heard by the learned court below without being prejudiced by the impugned order dated 10.8.2008. The learned court below shall apply its mind afresh and pass fresh order for consideration of police assistance after applying with the ratio laid down in the contempt matter by the Hon`ble Division Bench in the aforesaid contempt petition.

¶49

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶50

Sanjay

Om Singh v. Dhirendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Singh v. Dhirendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitra Devi Vs the Chairman

Vikas Kumhar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

M/S. Veer Prabhu Marketing Vs Sun Moon Printers Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Gaj Singh Mehta Vs State and Ors.

Shiva Nand Vs Civil Court NO.3, Jodhpur and Anr.

Anita Payala Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.