Allowed

Bajrang Lal v. Babu Lal

Rajasthan HC17 Mar 2021CR/24/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Civil Revision Petition against an order by the Additional District Judge, the High Court of Rajasthan observed that while the closure of oral arguments due to the petitioner's dilatory conduct was not entirely justified, the decision to hear the application at the final hearing was appropriate. The Court directed that written submissions be filed, oral arguments permitted, but strict

What did the court decide?

Directed that written submissions be filed and oral arguments permitted, but no adjournment shall be granted.

Bajrang Lal Vs Babu Lal — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 2)

¶2

[CR-24/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶4

JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 24/2021

¶6

Bajrang Lal S/o Khema Ram, Aged About 64 Years, Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dis. Churu

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Babu Lal S/o Khema Ram, Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dis. Churu

¶10

Nand Lal Through Lrs S/o Khema Ram, Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dis. Churu

¶11

Parma Devi W/o Nand Lal, Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dis. Churu

¶12

Saroj D/o Nand Lal, Ashok Stambh Ki Gali, Chhapar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dis. Churu

¶13

Babita D/o Nand Lal, Ward No. 30, Near Jaipuriya Kuwa, Behind Goyanka Ki Kothi, Laxmangarh, Dis. Sikar

¶14

Anil S/o Nand Lal, Village Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dis. Churu

¶15

Ranjana D/o Nand Lal, Ward No. 8, Doliyon Ka Baas, Gindar Chowk, Bajaj Road, Sikar

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi. Mr. Mahendra Thanvi.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶19

17/03/2021

¶20

This revision petition is directed against order dated 06.03.2021 passed by Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu, whereby, decision on the application filed by the petitioner/appellant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been deferred and it is observed that the submissions shall be heard at the time of final hearing.

¶21

A perusal of the revision petition indicates that suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1990, which came to be decreed on 22.07.2011. The appeal was filed in the year 2011 and after passage of 10 years, the application before the first appellate court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed and that also after employing all kind of tactics to defer the hearing of the appeal. The court, to ensure that the appeal is finally heard on

¶22

(2 of 2)

¶23

[CR-24/2021]

¶24

merits, directed that the application shall be heard at the time of final hearing, however, on account of the conduct of the petitioner/appellant, it was further observed that by the next date the appellant/petitioner should file his written submissions and remain present for hearing the arguments of the respondents in the appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the appellate court was not justified in closing the oral submissions of the petitioner, which will prejudice his case and to the said limited extent indulgence may be granted.

¶26

Looking to the circumstances of the case, the directions given by the appellate court to decide the application at the time of final hearing cannot be faulted.

¶27

Further the directions given to file written submissions also are appropriate in the circumstances of the case, however, the closing of the oral arguments cannot be said to be justified despite the conduct of the petitioner.

¶28

Therefore, while not interfering with the order impugned, it is directed that if the petitioner files his written submissions on the next date fixed before the appellate court and also makes oral submissions, the oral submissions would be permitted by the appellate court and it is also expected of the court to decide the appeal uninfluenced by the past conduct of the petitioner.

¶29

It is made clear that under no circumstances at the request of the petitioner, the appeal shall be adjourned.

¶30

With the above direction, the revision petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶32

5-pradeep/-

Bajrang Lal v. Babu Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajrang Lal v. Babu Lal

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

Champalal Vs Chandra Devi

Poona Ram @ Pawan Vs State of Rajasthan

Onkarnath Vs Lrs of Gangaram

Babu Singh Vs Gurdev Singh

Ravi Khurana Vs Mallu Ram Swami

Sabir Mohammad Vs Nanakchand