Dismissed

Municipal Board, Chittorgarh Th. Comm. v. Rajmohan

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2021CSA/236/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a decree granting permanent injunction in a civil suit, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous. The court held that since the appellant (Municipal Board) itself granted construction permission to the respondent, the dispute was resolved, making the appeal futile.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 151 CPC allowed; Appeal dismissed as having become infructuous.

Municipal Board, Chittorgarh Th. Comm. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 236/2015

¶3

Municipal Board, Chittorgarh through Commissioner, Municipal Board, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajmohan S/o Manmohan Mehta (Jain), R/o Nagar Palika Colony, Chittorgarh.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s)	: Dr. Pratishtha Dave.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jaideep Saluja for Mr. Manish Shishodia.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

Judgment

¶11

03/08/2021

¶12

This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Chittorgarh and the judgment & decree dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh, whereby the suit filed by the respondent for permanent injunction has been decreed and the appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected.

¶13

The respondent filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, wherein after trial, the trial court ordered that the construction raised by the plaintiff on the plot in question alongwith boundary wall be not demolished. The appellate court upheld the said judgment.

¶14

The appeal is pending since 2015 and has so far not been admitted.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CSA-236/2015]

¶17

An application has been filed by the respondent under Section 151 CPC, inter-alia, indicating that the appellant - Municipal Board was claiming the Northern side road of the plot at 30 ft. instead of 20 ft., based on which, the suit was filed and the same was decreed against the Municipal Board.

¶18

During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an application seeking permission to raise construction over the suit property, which permission has been granted and construction has been completed.

¶19

Alongwith the application, copy of the construction permission as well as approved map has been placed on record.

¶20

Based on the above development, it is submitted that as the Municipal Board itself has granted construction permission and the same has been acted upon, the appeal has been rendered infructuous.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to dispute the grant of permission by the appellant - Municipal Board.

¶22

In the circumstances of the case, wherein the suit of the respondent-plaintiff already stands decreed, the appeal filed by the Municipal Board dismissed by the appellate court, there was no injunction granted by this Court and now the appellant itself has accepted the position as projected by the plaintiff, the appeal apparently has been rendered infructuous.

¶23

In view thereof, the application filed by the respondent is allowed.

¶24

The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶25

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶26

77-Rmathur/-

Municipal Board, Chittorgarh Th. Comm. v. Rajmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Board, Chittorgarh Th. Comm. v. Rajmohan

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

Kishan Singh @ Krishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs.of Richpal Vs Krishan Kumar

Chandra Kanwar Vs Ravindra Singh

Gulkandi @ Shanti Devi Vs Banshi Lal

Smt. Bheekhi Devi Vs Manak Lal and Ors.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Mohan and Ors.