Allowed

Satish Kumar v. Sharda Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2019CW/1009/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. It directed the trial court to take the rejoinder on record and decide the pending partition suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed, the rejoinder is directed to be taken on record, and the trial court is directed to proceed further and decide the case expeditiously.

Satish Kumar Vs Sharda Devi and Ors. — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1009/2018

¶3

Satish Kumar Adopted Son Of Durga Prasad Brahmin By Caste, Resident Of Near Nageshwar Bagichi, Ward No.-7, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sharda Devi Wife Of Late Shri Durga Prasad, Brahmin By Caste, Resident Of Near Nageshwar Bagichi, Ward No.-7, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶7

Shri Pooranmal Son Of Late Shri Bhuraram, By Case Brahmin-Sharma, Resident Of Village Lalas, Tehsil Nanwa, District Nagaur Rajasthan.

¶8

Shri Harish Kumar Sharma, Son Of Shri Sitaram Sharma, By Caste Brahmin Sharma, Resident Of Near Nageshwar Bagichi, Ward No.-7, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhojak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

24/04/2019

¶14

The matter comes up on an application under Article 226(3)of the Constitution of India. Taking into consideration the nature of the case, both the counsel agree that the matter may be disposed off at this stage.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a partition suit relating to the property as well as cancellation of sale deed executed by the respondents. In written statement,the defendants-respondents have incorporated new facts in paras 10, 11, 13 & 16 of the written statement. In view of the new facts

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-1009/2018]

¶18

wherein the respondents have claimed the property to be self acquired property, the petitioner plaintiff moved an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for bringing on record rejoinder which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13.10.2017.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that while denying averments made in the plaint, the defendants respondents have taken up the plea of property being self acquired and the same therefore, cannot be said to be new plea.

¶20

I have considered the submissions and find that by way additional pleadings, the defendants have added certain facts in his written statement and therefore, if a rejoinder has been filed by moving application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, the trial court ought to have allowed the application and proceed with the matter instead of complicating the case resulting in the matter traveling to the High Court. Attempt should be made by trial court to see that the case is expedited and for which purpose unnecessary orders which may travel to the High Court on flimsy reasons ought to have been avoided and attempt should be made by the Judicial officers in this regard to see that issue may be decided and nipped in the bud itself.

¶21

Having noticed above, the order passed by the trial court dated 13.10.2017 deserves to be set aside s far as it rejects the application Under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC moved by the petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, application is allowed. The rejoinder is directed to be taken on record. The trial court is directed to proceed further and decide the case expeditiously.

¶23

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶24

Anu/

Satish Kumar v. Sharda Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. Sharda Devi and Ors.

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

O/L of M/S Triveni Greenery Finlease Ltd. Vs Ahnish Kamal Bhatnagar

Gopal Punia S/O Late Shri Raghunath Punia Vs Shri Om Prakash Galhotra

Dr. Jatan Mal Mathur S/O Sugan Mal Mathur Vs Shri Rohit Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department

Seema Sharma and Ors. Vs Naresh Gangwar and Ors.

Bhanwari Devi W/O Shri Ramgopal Vs Santosh Devi W/O Shri Girdhari Lal

Biharilal S/O Late Jaikishan Koli Vs Smt Ganga Devi W/O Chotylal Koli