Dismissed

Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Maharaj v. Shri Banwarilal S/O Shri Sudaram Agarwal

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2019CW/3639/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a temple under Article 227 CPC. The petitioners sought interference with an order declining an application to adduce evidence after a five-year delay. The court held that pending proceedings did not stay all proceedings below, leading to the dismissal of the writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed and the impugned order was upheld.

Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Maharaj Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 3639/2019

¶3

Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Maharaj, Outside Surajpole Gate Mohanbari, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Executive Trustee Shri Narayan Das

¶4

Mehant Damodar Das Chela Mehant Shri Chaturbhuj Das, R/o Mandir Shri Nrasingh Ji Maharaj, Outside Surajpole Darwaja, Mohanbari Jaipur (Deceased During The Suit), Through

¶5

Mehant Narayandas Chela Damodardas, Address Mandir Shri Nrsingh Ji Maharaj, Outside Surajpole Darwaja, Mohanbari, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Banwarilal S/o Shri Sudaram Agarwal, R/o Jaipur Behind Narsingh Ji Ka Mandir, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole Dawdara, Jaipur (Since Deceased), Through Legal Heir.

¶9

Shri Sadhuram S/o Not Known, (Since Deceased)

¶10

Mahesh Chand S/o Shri Sadhuram, R/o Behind Nrsingh Ji Mandir, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole, Darwaje, Jaipur.

¶11

Bhuvnesh S/o Shri Sadhuram, R/o Behind Nrsingh Ji Mandir, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole, Darwaje, Jaipur.

¶12

Shri Govind Agrawal S/o Late Shri Banwarilal Agarwal, Address In The Property Of Thakur Ji Shri Nrasingh Ji Maharaj, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole, Jaipur.

¶13

Shri Jagendra Agrawal S/o Late Shri Banwarilal Agrawal, Address In The Property Of Thakur Ji Shri Nrasingh Ji Maharaj, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole, Jaipur.

¶14

Smt. Triveni Devi W/o Late Shri Banwarilal Agarwal, Address In The Property Of Thakur Ji Shri Nrasingh Ji Maharaj, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole, Jaipur.

¶15

Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Agarwal D/o Late Shri

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-3639/2019]

¶18

Banwarilal Agarwal, Address In The Property Of Thakur Ji Shri Nrasingh Ji Maharaj, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole, Jaipur.

¶19

Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Shri Rajendra Agarwal D/o Late Sh. Banwalrilal Agarwal, Address In The Property Of Thakur Ji Shri Nrasingh Ji Maharaj, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole, Jaipur.

¶20

Smt. Kusum Devi W/o Shri Naresh Agarwal D/o Late Shri Banwarilal, Address In The Property Of Thakur Ji Shri Nrasingh Ji Maharaj, New Anaj Mandi Sarak, Outside Surajpole, Jaipur.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narain Das, representative on behalf of the petitioner-Temple

¶23

For Respondent(s) :

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶25

Order

¶26

18/02/2019

¶27

Instant writ application has been instituted by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 9^th January, 2019, wherein, an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, has been declined by the Court below.

¶28

Representative of the petitioner-Temple contended that for a revision petition was pending before this Court and an interim order was operating, therefore, the evidence was not led; and hence, the Court below ought to have granted the application to adduce evidence of the expert witness. However, the fact that the interim order made by this Court was only to the extent restraining the court below not to make final order; is not disputed. Further, the fact that the evidence was concluded five

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-3639/2019]

¶31

year before the application was instituted by the petitioner, is, also not disputed.

¶32

Heard and considered.

¶33

Indisputably, pending proceedings before this Court, in no manner, stayed the proceedings pending before the Court below but for a direction restraining the court below from making a final order. In view of admitted position that the proceedings were allowed to continue before the Court below and in fact did continue wherein evidence was adduced by the parties and was concluded five year ago; the application instituted by the petitioner was after an inordinate and unexplained delay.

¶34

In view of the factual matrix aforesaid, the petitioner was clearly irresponsible and careless in not availing of the opportunity to lead evidence which was sought to be led after five years and an application instituted on 6^th January, 2018, for that purpose, which has been declined vide impugned order dated 9^th January, 2019.

¶35

In view of the conspicuous factual matrix of the case at hand so also for the reasonings recorded by the Court below, while declining the application of the petitioner; I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

In the result, writ application fails, and is, hereby dismissed.

¶37

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶38

Pooja/255

Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Maharaj v. Shri Banwarilal S/O Shri Sudaram Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Maharaj v. Shri Banwarilal S/O Shri Sudaram Agarwal

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

Smt. Sudesh Kohli Vs Shiv Kumar S/O Mangilal Vijay

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Arjundas S/O Shyamdas Vs Lalludas Ji Swami Chela Ramdevdaar Ji

M/S Greenfield Food Products Vs Shri Sanjay Malhotra

Pratibha Shikshak Prashikshan Mahila Mahavidyalay Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Shashi Bala Tiwari W/O Shri Ravindra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Rajasthan