Allowed

Rajendra Prasad Son of Kajodmal v. Additional District and Session Judge (Fast-Track) No. 3

Rajasthan HC18 Oct 2019CW/13353/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the trial court's dismissal of an application to take on record a rejoinder. The High Court held that dismissing the application was illegal after the trial court had granted liberty to file the rejoinder, allowing the writ and directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; writ petition allowed; application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC allowed; rejoinder taken on record; trial court directed to expedite suit.

Rajendra Prasad Son of Kajodmal Vs Additional… — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13353/2009

¶3

Rajendra Prasad son of Kajodmal by caste Brahmin resident of Ward No.06 Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Additional District & Session Judge (Fast Track) No.3 Jhunjhunu Head-Quarter Nawalgarh.

¶7

Smt. Rukma Devi Wife Of Nagarmal,

¶8

Nagarmal son of Surja (deceased)

¶9

3/1. Chouthmal S/o Nagarmal age 40 years

¶10

3/2. Babulal S/o Nagarmal age 37 years

¶11

3/3. Gordhan S/o Nagarmal age 34 years

¶12

3/4. Ram Niwas S/o Nagarmal age 31 years

¶13

3/5 Suresh S/o Nagarmal age 29 years

¶14

3/6 Vimla D/o Nagarmal age 27 years 3/7. Suman D/o nagarmal age 19 years

¶15

3/8. Manju D/o Nagarmal age 17 years

¶16

(Through Natural Guardin Mother Smt. Rukma Devi W/o Nagarmal)

¶17

3/9 Kavita D/o Nagarmal age 15 years.

¶18

(Through Natural Guardin Mother Smt. Rukma Devi W/o Nagarmal)

¶19

4.Naruram @ Narmal son of Nagarmal

¶20

All by caste Mali resident of Kalbeliya ki dhani ward No. 29, Nawalgarh tehsil Nawalgarh district Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

¶24

18/10/2019

¶25

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the trial Court

¶26

(2 of 3)

¶27

[CW-13353/2009]

¶28

whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents-defendants Nos.2 to 4. The respondents-defendants filed written statement on 26.05.2009 and on the said date, the trial Court granted liberty to the petitioner-plaintiff to file rejoinder and the petitioner-plaintiff on 1.8.2009 filed application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for taking on record the rejoinder. Thereafter on 05.09.2009, the respondents-defendants filed reply to the application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The trial court after hearing counsel for the parties dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff vide order dated 16.9.2009. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 16.9.2009.

¶30

Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff and the trial court was not justified in declining to take on record the rejoinder filed by the petitioner-plaintiff as the trial Court itself granted liberty to the petitioner-plaintiff to file rejoinder vide order dated 26.05.2009 and lastly, prayed that the trial Court be directed to take on record the rejoinder already submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff on 01.08.2009.

¶31

None present on behalf of the respondents-defendants despite service.

¶32

Heard counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and perused the record.

¶33

The writ petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff deserves to

¶34

be allowed for the reason that once the trial Court itself has

¶35

(3 of 3)

¶36

[CW-13353/2009]

¶37

granted liberty to the petitioner-plaintiff to submit the rejoinder vide order dated 26.05.2009, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for taking on record the rejoinder is illegal and not sustainable.

¶38

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by trial Court dated 16.9.2009 is set aside. The application submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed and the rejoinder submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff on 01.08.2009 is ordered to be taken on record. Considering the fact that the suit is pending before the trial Court since 2009, the trial Court is directed to expedite the suit. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court.

¶39

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶40

JYOTI /80

Rajendra Prasad Son of Kajodmal v. Additional District and Session Judge (Fast-Track) No. 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Son of Kajodmal v. Additional District and Session Judge (Fast-Track) No. 3

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

Ram Kishore S/O Bholuram Vs Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

M/S Maa Jobner Grit Udyog Vs J v v N L

Sahab Deen S/O Juhru B/C Fakeer Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwan Lal Somani Vs Acj Jd Baran

Sunil Kumar Sharma S/O Late Sh. Navneet Lal Sharma Vs Kailash Sain S/O Late Sh. Banshi Lal Sain

Shubhankar Nagar Son of Shri Ajay Kumar Nagar Vs State of Rajasthan