Dismissed

Pushp Chand Jain S/O Shri Bajranglal Ji Jain, v. Moorti Shri Gopal Ji Vriajman

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2022CMAP/32/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Civil Miscellaneous Application seeking an extension of time to vacate leased premises. The Court rejected the Appellant's plea based on the pandemic and health issues, noting sufficient time had existed between the prior order and the pandemic onset, and no medical evidence was produced.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pushp Chand Jain S/O Shri Bajranglal Ji… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 32/2022

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 519/2019

¶5

Pushp Chand Jain S/o Shri Bajranglal Ji Jain, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Through Firm Jain Pushp Sweet Brijarajpura, Kota (Rajasthan.)

¶6

----Appellant/Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Moorti Shri Gopal Ji Vriajman, Temple Shri Gopal Ji Jangid Bhramin Kota Panchayat Ward Brijrajpura, Opposite Sunder Dharamshala, Bheru Ji Ke Chowk Main, Next Friend Jangid Brahmin Sabha Kota, Through President Krishan Gopal Ji, S/o Shri Kishan Shakti Bazzar Kota,

¶9

Jangid Brahmin Sahba Kota, Through President Krishnan Gopal Ji, S/o Shri Kishan, R/o Shiripura Near Sunder Dharamshala, Kota.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Kasliwal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶13

Order

¶14

31/03/2022

¶15

Matter comes up on an application under Section 148 readwith Section 151 CPC for extension of time over the time granted by this Court vide order dated 1.11.2019 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 519/2019 upto March, 2023.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to peak of Corona pandemic from March, 2020 till February, 2022 as also in view of the fact that the appellant suffered heart problems, he could not search the alternative premises and could not run his

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CMAP-32/2022]

¶19

business properly, therefore, the order dated 1.11.20219 be modified and the time granted by this Court to vacate the tenanted premises be extended upto March, 2023.

¶20

Heard. Considered.

¶21

From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the order was passed by this Court on 1.11.20219 and as per the averments made in the application, peak of the Corona pandemic was from March, 2020. In this way, from 1.11.20219 to March 2020 i.e. for four months, when there was no lockdown on account of Covid-19, the appellant had sufficient time to search out the alternate premises, but he did not do so; the order of lockdown has since been lifted, but thereafter also no effort is found to have been made by the appellant to search out the alternative accommodation; by the order dated 1.11.2019, two and half years time was granted to the appellant, which is expiring today i.e. on 31.3.2022 and no documents regarding illness of the appellant have been produced on record, I do not deem it just and proper to extend the time.

¶22

Thus, the application filed by the appellant being bereft of any merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶23

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶24

DK/45

Pushp Chand Jain S/O Shri Bajranglal Ji Jain, v. Moorti Shri Gopal Ji Vriajman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pushp Chand Jain S/O Shri Bajranglal Ji Jain, v. Moorti Shri Gopal Ji Vriajman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Keli Devi and Ors. Vs Chanda Lal Choudhary and Ors.

National Insurance O Lgc Vs Mst Shivdevi and Ors.

Sarvodya Public Senior Secondary School Vs Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Sunita Devi W/O Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Vs Shimbhudayal S/O Shri Laxman Das

Vijay Kumar Shah S/O Shri Bhankikam Shah Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramdev S/O Late Shri Shrawan Vs Motilal Choudhary S/O Shri Ramratan Choudhary