Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar v. Hiranand

Rajasthan HC9 Mar 2021CW/2121/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ intervention against lower court order declining to combine a 2009 partition suit with a pending 2019 suit challenging a Will. Court distinguished cited precedent due to significant time gap. Petition dismissed, stay application dismissed, and pending applications disposed of without interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; stay application dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Hiranand — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2121/2021

¶3

Ramesh Kumar s/o Late Thavar Das, Aged About 56 Years, r/o Plot No.74, Patel Colony, Santpur, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Hiranand S/o Late Shri Thavar Das, r/o Poonam Colony, Behind Ramakishan School, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶7

Jitendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Thavar Das, r/o In Front Of Mahaveer Guest House, Vakil Lane, Abu Road, District Sirohi

¶8

Shri Arjun Das S/o Late Shri Thavar Das, r/o Abakri Road, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶9

Smt.Sarla Devi @ Kanchan W/o Shri Shankar Lal, r/o Plot No.10, Rajhans Colony, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.

¶10

Sohani Devi @ Mahima W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gangwani, r/o 194/17, Sector No.19, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shreyansh Mardia

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

09/03/2021

¶16

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

¶17

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief:

¶18

“By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 21.01.2021 (Annex.9) passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Abu Road in original

¶19

(2 of 3) [CW-2121/2021]

¶20

suit No.38/2009 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently, the application preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has instituted a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the other family members on 27.07.2009.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present respondent No.1 has filed another suit in the year 2019 challenging the Will dated 29.01.2009, which was already on record in the earlier litigation even in the year 2009.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the issue framed regarding validity of the Will is common in both aforementioned the suits, therefore, both the suits ought to be connected and heard together, which prayer has been declined by the learned court below vide the impugned order.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Narendra Singh Vs. Jai Singh & Ors., reported in 2016(2) DNJ (Raj.) 719 . 7. Learned counsel for the respondents however, opposes the writ petition on the ground that the Will in question was already on record in the year 2009 itself, and the issue in regard thereto has already been framed and the litigation is pending for more than 11 years, whereas the current suit has been filed only in the year 2019. Learned counsel for the respondents thus submits that in case both the suits are connected and heard together, the same would prejudice the rights of the present respondents.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-2121/2021]

¶28

the Bar, this Court is of the firm opinion that in absence of any justifiable reason, the litigation in relation to an earlier suit of 2009, which is being litigated, cannot be combined with the litigation in relation to another suit, which has come into existence only in the year 2019. Moreover, the reason stated on behalf of the petitioner for connecting and hearing both the suits together is the Will dated 29.01.2009, which is already a part of the earlier litigation. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, because of the long time gap between institution of the two suits.

¶29

In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to make interference in the impugned order passed by the learned court below.

¶30

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶32

72-SKant/-

Ramesh Kumar v. Hiranand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. Hiranand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mana Ram Vs Jodhpur Development Authority

Smt. Mamta Bansal Vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib Society Vs the Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal

Rahul Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Nikki Bala Arora Vs Kan Oxford Convent International School

Gram Panchayat Salwa Khurd Vs State of Rajasthan