Disposed

Municipal Board, Sardarshahar and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2021CR/90/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to withdraw a suit. The court held that since the relevant period for work orders had expired, no immediate relief could be granted, and the plea for permanent injunction against future contracts was inherently ungranted, rendering the suit infructuous. The petitioner was directed to approach the trial

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was disposed of. The petitioner was directed to move an application before the trial court regarding the suit being rendered infructuous.

Municipal Board, Sardarshahar and Anr. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 90/2016

¶3

Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, Churu through Executive Officer, Municipal Board Sardarshahar, District Churu.

¶4

Chairman, Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, District Churu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajesh Kumar S/o Mahadevaram, R/o Ward No.36, Sardarshahar, District Churu.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.R. Saharan

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶11

Order

¶12

08/02/2021

¶13

This revision petition is directed against order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application field by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners on the last date made submissions that in view of the prayer made in suit, the suit itself, has been rendered infructuous.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff made submissions that in view of the prayer made in the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit has been rendered infructuous.

¶16

The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction, essentially, on the ground that he was highest bidder for the year 2015-16 for collecting animal carcasses, however, as he was not issued the work order, the contract for 2016-17 be also not granted.

¶17

(2 of 3) [CR-90/2016]

¶18

The following reliefs were sought in the plaint:-

¶19

“vr% nkok oknh cgd okn f[kykQ izfroknhx.k uhps fy[ks vuqlkj fMØh Qjek;k tkos %&

¶20

¼d½ tfj;s vkKknk;h O;kns”k bl vej dk tkjh fd;k tkos fd oknh ds i{k esa o’kZ 2015&16 ds fy, ,d forh; o’kZ dk er i”kq gM~Mh Bsdk Lohdr fd;k tk pqdk Fkk] dk dk;Z vkns”k oknh dks ugha fn;k x;k Fkk mlds LFkku ij o’kZ 2016&17 o fdlh Hkh ,d vkxkeh forh; o’kZ dk er i”kq gM~Mh Bsdk oknh ds i{k esa ljnkj”kgj uxjikfydk {ks= dh leLr xkS”kkykvksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, Lohdr dj oknh dks dk;Z vkns”k tkjh fd;k tkosA

¶21

¼[k½ tfj;s fMØh fpj LFkkbZ O;kns”k ls izfroknhx.k dks ikcUn fd;k tkos fd oks er i”kq gM~Mh Bsdk o’kZ 2016&17 ds fy, fnukad 28-03-2016 ls fnukad 30-03-2016 rd [kqyh cksyh ugha yxkos rFkk uk gh Bsdk fdlh vU; ds i{k esa Lohdr djs rFkk vkxekh fdlh Hkh forh; o’kZ dk e`r i”kq gM~Mh Bsdk dh fufonk tkjh ugha dh tkos rFkk uk gh ,slk dk;Z o midk;Z djs vFkok djok;s ftlls oknh ds dkwuuh gd vf/kdkjksa ij foijhr vlj iM+sA

¶22

¼x½ ;g fd [kpkZ eqdnek oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k tkosA ¼?k½ ;g fd vU; dksbZ U;k;ksfpr vuqrks’k tks fgrdj oknh gks ;k gks tkos oksg Hkh iznku fd;k tkosA fnukad 21-3-2016”

¶23

A perusal of the reliefs claimed indicates that mandatory injunction was sought for issuance of the work order for the year 2016-2017 instead of the year 2015-16 and permanent injunction that in future also, the contract for the said purpose may not be given.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent on query made, indicated that the plea pertained to the year 2016-17 was based on the fact that the respondent-plaintiff was highest bidder in the year 2015-16 and that the injunction for future years has not been sought on any other basis.

¶25

In view of the fact that the period 2016-17 has long expired, no relief as claimed in the suit can now be granted.

¶26

So far as claiming permanent injunction against grant of contract for any future year is concerned, the said relief by its very nature cannot be granted and as such, the suit as filed has indeed been rendered infructuous.

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CR-90/2016]

¶29

In view of the above, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of.

¶30

The petitioner may move an appropriate application before the trial court pertaining to the suit having been rendered infructuous, on which the trial court would pass appropriate orders based on the observations here-in-before.

¶31

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶32

84-Sachin/-

Municipal Board, Sardarshahar and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Board, Sardarshahar and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Sanjay Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Damor Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju Redu Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Manju Vs Shanker Singh and Anr.

Satyanarain Vs Shanker Singh and Anr.

Dariya Singh and Ors. Vs Phool Singh and Ors.