Dismissed

Jagtat Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat Kalibanga and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2019CW/3757/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a trial court order rejecting their application to reconstruct a dilapidated wall during pendency of a suit for injunction. The High Court held that reconstruction would affect respondents' defence regarding encroachment and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Application to reconstruct the wall was denied; writ petition dismissed.

Jagtat Singh and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3757/2018

¶3

Jagtar Singh S/o Gitan Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh R/o Kalibanga Tehsil Pilibanga Dist. Hanumangarh.

¶4

Baljindra Singh S/o Jagtar Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh R/o Kalibanga Tehsil Pilibanga Dist. Hanumangarh.

¶5

Aman Barad S/o Jagtar Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh R/o Kalibanga Tehsil Pilibanga Dist. Hanumangarh.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gram Panchayat Kalibanga Through Its Sarpanch, R/o Kalibanga Tehsil Pilibanga Dist. Hanumangarh.

¶9

Panchayat Samiti Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga Dist. Hanumangarh Through Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Pilibanga.

¶10

State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Hanumangarh Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

¶11

Civil Judge, Pilibanga District Hanumangarh.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Adv.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

21/02/2019

¶17

By way of this writ petition, petitioners challenge order dated 20.01.2018 whereby application moved by the petitioners before the trial court has been rejected.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had filed suit for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC with a prayer that the status quo relating to the wall be maintained. A status quo order was passed in their favour.

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CW-3757/2018]

¶21

However, during pendency of the suit the wall which was in dilapidated condition had fallen at certain places and, therefore, they moved an appplication for allowing them to re-construct the wall. The trial Court has rejected their application erroneously and it is the duty of the trial Court to preserve the suit property and therefore the application ought to have been allowed.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentGram Panchayat submits that the case of the Gram Panchayat was that the petitioners had encroached upon the public way and had constructed a wall thereto. If re-construction of the wall is allowed, it would affect rights of the villagers and thus he supports the order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶23

I have considered the submissions and find that if reconstruction of the wall is allowed, that would affect pleadings and the defence of the defendants-respondents, who have specifically mentioned about encroachment. In the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be allowed to again raise the wall and make reconstruction. The order dated 20.01.2018, passed by the learned trial Court thus does not call for any intereference.

¶24

The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶26

Raghu/214

Jagtat Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat Kalibanga and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtat Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat Kalibanga 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

Bhartiya Sanskriti Sanvardhak Trust Vs Marwar Tent House

Bharat Kumar Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiva Explosives India Pvt. Ltd, Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Soni Vs State and Ors.

Poona Ram Vs Mohan Ram and Ors.

Raimal and Ors. Vs Mishrilal