Dismissed

Vijay Singh S/O Kanhaiya Lal v. Harinarayan S/O Bharta

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2019CW/2949/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This by-laws judgment upholds the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to appoint a receiver over disputed land cited under CPC. The court affirms that the lower court correctly applied requisite five conditions, noting continuous peaceful possession by the opponent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition challenging rejection of receiver appointment was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Vijay Singh S/O Kanhaiya Lal Vs Harinarayan S/O… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 2949/2019

¶3

Vijay Singh S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Gurjar R/o Chandera Tehsil Baswa District Dausa Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Harinarayan S/o Bharta, By Caste Gurjar R/o Chandera Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa Rajasthan.

¶7

Rameshwar S/o Khairati, By Caste Gurjar R/o Chandera Tehsil Baswa District Dausa Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nawal Singh Sikarwar For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

15/03/2019

¶13

The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order dated 15.11.2018 whereby his application moved under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for appointing receiver on the land which is the disputed property, has been rejected.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has the possession over the said land and the plaintiff has given vague submission in the suit with regard to the possession and the property in dispute is in Medio, and there are all chances of the property being wrongfully disposed and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to have appointed the receiver on the property.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-2949/2019]

¶17

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the submissions, and find that the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Bandikui, Distt. Dausa is in conformity with the provisions and conditions which are required to be followed for appointment of receiver. Five requirements laid down in 1985 WLN (UC) 189 (Madhopuri and ors.Vs. Banshidhar and ors.)

¶18

were found to be not made out for appointing receiver in the present case. The possession of Hari Narain has been mentioned by the non-applicant and the non-applicant Rameshwar has also submitted that the possession of the land is with Hari Narain.

¶19

Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the learned Judge has proceeded to hold that there was no occasion to appoint receiver on the land and find that the order passed by the learned Judge is based on sound reasonings as the five conditions as laid down in the aforesaid judgment, which require that the discretion has to be exercised by the concerned court only when it is found that there is excellent chance of succeeding in the suit and that there are conflicting claims which need the opposition where no irreparable loss would be caused to the defendant and no one is enjoying the property which is in Medio, then only receiver may be appointed. In the present case, admittedly the continuous possession is with Hari Narain as per observations recorded by the concerned Addl. District District Judge No.2, Bandikui and he was having peaceful possession since 20.7.2011.

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CW-2949/2019]

¶22

The application moved by the petitioner on 30.5.2012 would be thus misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition is found devoid of merit.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶25

Sandeep/-50

Vijay Singh S/O Kanhaiya Lal v. Harinarayan S/O Bharta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh S/O Kanhaiya Lal v. Harinarayan S/O Bharta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Devi Agrawal Wife of Shri Sohan Lal Agrawal Vs Shri Radheyshyam Choudhary S/O. Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji Choudhary

Mukesh Kumar Jain Son of Late Deendayal Jain Vs Komal Prasad Son of Madan Mohan

Kavita Choudhary Daughter of Shri Kishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash Gera Son of Pyarelal Vs Satyanarayan Sharma Son of Ramkishan Sharma

Sushil Katariya S/O Shri Shivjilal Katariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Swami Dayananad Shikshan Avm Vikash Sansthan Vs National Council for Teacher Education