Dismissed

Kalu Ram v. Chain Ram

Rajasthan HC8 Jul 2019CW/10450/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition seeking review of the rejection of an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition with liberty to file a review petition in the trial court. The trial court will decide the review independently.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw writ petition with liberty to file review petition before the trial court.

Kalu Ram Vs Chain Ram — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10450/2018

¶3

Kalu Ram S/o Shri Prithvi Raj., Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Jat R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil- Nimbahera District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chain Ram S/o Shri Gopal Lal, By Caste Jat R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil-Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

¶7

Manmal S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Laxipura, Tehsil-Nimbahera. District Chittorgarh.

¶8

Ganpat Lal S/o Shri Gopal Lal, By Caste Jat, Laxmipura, Tehsil-Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

¶9

Lehari Bai W/o Shri Prem Chand, By Caste Jat, Laxmipura, Tehsil-Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh.

¶10

Gopal Lal S/o Shri Prem Chand, By Caste Jat, Laxmipura, Tehsil-Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SL Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

08/07/2019

IA No.2/2019 :

Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner informing that the next date before the trial Court is 15.7.2019 prays for preponment of the date.

¶18

For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and the matter is taken up for consideration today itself.

¶19

SBCWP No.10450/2018 :

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CW-10450/2018]

¶22

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.5.2018, vide which the petitioner’s application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

¶23

Briefly narrated the facts of the present case are that the plaintiff Chain Ram filed the suit for partition against the defendant Manmal and others for the ancestral agricultural land. The petitioner Kalu Ram filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 9.8.2017 seeking his impleadment with the following averments:

¶24

“vkosnu i= vkns’k 1 fu;e 10 tk0fn0 izkFkhZ dkyqjke firk i`Fohjk th

¶25

tkV fuoklh y{ehiqjk rg0 fuEckgsMk dh vkSj ls vkosnu fuEu izdkj is’k gS*%&

¶26

1- ;g fd oknh@izkFkhZ us mDr muoku dk izkFkZuki= is’k fd;k gSa] ftlesa tkucq> dj eq>s i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gSa] tcfd rFkkdfFkr vkjkth;kr fooknhr gS vkSj oknxzLr vkjkth;kr iwoZ esa esjh [kkrsnkjh ls /kks[ks ls jn~nkscny gqbZ gS] ftlds lac/k esa jktLo U;k;ky; esa izdj.k iwoZ ls py jgk gSaA rFkk bl izdj.k dh tkudkjh eq>s gky gh esa gqbZ gS rFkk mDr vkjkth;kr esa esjk fgr fufgr gS] blfy;s eq>s bl izdj.k esa i{kdkj cukdj lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vko’;d gSA

¶27

vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd mDr izdj.k esa eq> izkFkhZ dks foi{kh cuk;k tkus dh vuqefr iznku djus dh d`ik djkosA”

¶28

The learned trial Court rejected petitioner’s aforesaid application, inter alia, observing that the petitioner’s impleadment application is vague and omnibus averments have been made, without giving specific reference of Khasra Numbers or other particulars about the disputed land vis-a-vis the applicant’s land. The trial Court had further observed that the petitioner had not

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-10450/2018]

¶31

enclosed any documentary evidence in support of his application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶32

Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner points out from page no.58 of the writ petition, that the petitioner had filed various documents in support of his application.

¶33

A prima facie look at page no.58 shows that these documents were filed on 29.1.2018, however after four months of the filing of the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶34

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to file review petition before the learned trial Court inviting its attention towards the documents filed by the petitioner on 29.1.2018.

¶35

The writ petition is therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. The stay application no.10404/2018 also stands disposed of.

¶36

Needless to observe that if the petitioner moves a review application, the learned trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the fact that the present writ petition against the order dated 17.5.2018 has been dismissed as withdrawn.

¶37

The Stay Application No.10404/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶39

94-CPGoyal/-

Kalu Ram v. Chain Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalu Ram v. Chain Ram

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

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation Jodhpur Vs Govind Puri

The Chief Manager, Vs Hemaram

Badri Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Vs Smt.Kanta and Anr.

Ravindra Vs Smt.Kanta and Anr.

Bajaranglal Saraswa Vs State of Rajasthan