Dismissed

Chandrakala v. Madan Lal Rankawat

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2021CR/79/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that a revision petition filed against an order dismissing a plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC is not maintainable as an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(a) CPC lies exclusively. The court dismissed the revision, leaving the petitioner to approach the District Judge by way of appeal.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioner left to pursue appropriate proceedings.

Chandrakala Vs Madan Lal Rankawat — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 2)

¶2

[CR-79/2019]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 79/2019

¶5

Chandrakala D/o Shri Girdhari, Aged About 72 Years, W/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, B/c Mali, R/o Panwarsar Kua, Behind Roshanighar, Bikaner.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Madan Lal Rankawat S/o Shri Mohan Das Rankawat, B/c Swami. R/o Near Uit Quarter, Madan Dairy, Gali No. 20, Rampura Basti, Bikaner.

¶9

Yogendra Kumar S/o Heera Lal, S/o Girdhari, B/c Mali, R/o Ranisar Bas, Behind M.s. College, Bikaner.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishank Madan.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

15/01/2021

¶15

This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Bikaner (‘the trial court’), whereby on an application filed by the respondents under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC while exercising power under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC, the plaint has been directed to be returned to the plaintiff for being presented before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable as appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(a) CPC would lie against an order passed under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC.

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CR-79/2019]

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that as application has been filed under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, on which order under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC has been passed, the revision would be maintainable and alternatively submitted that the revision be converted into misc. appeal.

¶20

The submission made has no substance, inasmuch as, the substance of the order impugned has to be examined, wherein power has been exercised by the trial court under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC and, therefore, the appeal under order XLIII, Rule 1(a) CPC only would be maintainable.

¶21

Further as the order has been passed by Additional Civil Judge No.2, Bikaner, the appeal against the order impugned would lie before the Court of District Judge, therefore, the prayer made to convert the present revision petition into a civil misc. appeal also cannot be accepted.

¶22

Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed leaving it open for her to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶23

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

Chandrakala v. Madan Lal Rankawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakala v. Madan Lal Rankawat

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

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Mukesh Tyagi

Ratan Kanwar Vs Lrs of Gangaram

The Executive Engineer Vs Rameshwar Lal

Smt Pushpa Vs State

Ranu Singh Vs the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Shriram Bhargaw Vs Smt. Vijendradevi