Partly allowed

Mohan Lal S/O Shri Benaram, v. Ramswaroop Dagar S/O Shri Laduram Dagar

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2018SAW/1529/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Bench allowed the appeal and stay application, setting aside the Single Judge's order to implead specific authorities as respondents while maintaining status quo in the disputed property.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order; direct impleadment of Panchayat Samiti and Additional District Collector-IV; maintain status quo.

Mohan Lal S/O Shri Benaram, Vs Ramswaroop… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1529/2018

¶3

With

¶4

D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.22035/2018 In

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15242/2017

¶6

Mohan Lal S/o Shri Benaram, By Caste Raigar, Resident of Ward No. 10, Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.

¶7

Jagdish S/o Mangala,

¶8

Khuba S/o Shri Kaluram,

¶9

Prem Devi W/o Late Chhoturam,

¶10

All by caste Raigar, Residents Of Ward No.10, Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur

¶11

----Petitioners-Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Ramswaroop Dagar S/o Shri Laduram Dagar, By Caste Ahir, Resident Of Jhalra Mohanpura, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, At Present Resident Of Village Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.

¶14

Gram Panchayat Kaladera Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.

¶15

Hanuman Sahay Dabariya S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap Dabariya, By Caste Raigar, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Village Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta with Mr. Ankul Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Khandal

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶19

Order

¶20

04/12/2018

¶21

This appeal is filed against the order dated 14.11.2018 of the learned Single Judge refusing to continue the interim order and dismissing the stay application.

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[SAW-1529/2018]

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submitted that the matter was listed on the application seeking amendment based on subsequent developments sought to be brought on record as the respondents had despite stay order passed by this court raised constructions of multi storied building. The learned Single Judge dismissed the stay application owing to non-joinder of necessary parties, such as Panchyat Samiti and the Additional District Collector-IV, who respectively decided the appeal and the revision.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that after the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 01.05.2018, the appellants, who was writpetitioners before the learned Single Judge, were prolonging the matter and seeking adjournments to argue the matter.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that though the Panchayat Samiti, which decided the appeal filed by the respondent and the Additional District Collector-IV who remanded the revision filed by the appellants, could not be construed as necessary parties even then the petitioners-appellants prayed that they be impleaded to the writ petition. In the facts of the case, we are persuaded to set aside the order 14.11.2018 impugned in this appeal and direct their impleadment as party respondents no.4 and 5, respectively. Petitioner-appellants shall file amended cause-title in the writ petition. We request the learned Single Judge to take up the matter at an early date on the application of the appellants seeking amendment of the writ petition and pass appropriate order and also to decide the main writ petition at the earliest.

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[SAW-1529/2018]

¶29

In the meantime, the parties shall maintain the status quo with regard to the disputed property.

¶30

The writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge on 11.01.2019.

¶31

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. This also disposes of the stay application.

¶32

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶33

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶34

//Jaiman//66

Mohan Lal S/O Shri Benaram, v. Ramswaroop Dagar S/O Shri Laduram Dagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal S/O Shri Benaram, v. Ramswaroop Dagar S/O Shri Laduram Dagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheshyam S/O Shri Ram Swaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Sokat Ali S/O Late Shri Karim Khan Vs Smt Sahina Khatoon S/O Sokal Ali D/O Shri Mohd. Usman

Naresh Kumar Meena S/O Ganpat Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Madhu Chaudhary D/O Shri Rajendra Singh Vs Mona Sharma D/O Shri Kunj Bihari Sharma

Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs Rajendra Singh Gehlot S/O Shri J.S. Gehlot

Chairman Vs Riddhi Siddhi Public Shikshan Sansthan