Dismissed

Narayanlal v. Kesar Singh

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2023CR/207/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to set aside summons filed by a private defendant. The Court held the application was not maintainable as the objection to non-service of mandatory notice could only be raised by the party for whose benefit the provision exists. The revision and stay petition were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition and the stay petition were dismissed by the High Court.

Narayanlal Vs Kesar Singh — Municipal and Town Planning | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32928]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 207/2022

¶4

Narayanlal S/o Dalulal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Sirohi Ki Bhagal, Tehsil- Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand. (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kesar Singh S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Sirohi Ki Bhagal, Tehsil- Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand. (Raj.)

¶8

Khimabai D/o Devi Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Sirohi Ki Bhagal, Tehsil- Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand. (Raj.)

¶9

Vadnaibai D/o Devi Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Sirohi Ki Bhagal, Tehsil- Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand. (Raj.)

¶10

Jhamkubai D/o Devi Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Sirohi Ki Bhagal, Tehsil- Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand. (Raj.)

¶11

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sagrun, Tehsil Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand.

¶12

Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Sagrun, Tehsil Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand.

¶13

Up Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sagrun, Tehsil Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand.

¶14

Tehsildar/sub Registrar, Tehsil Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand. ----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baljinder Singh Sandhu

¶16

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶17

Order

¶18

05/10/2023

¶19

The present revision is filed against the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Nathdwara in Suit No.09/2022 whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as preferred by defendant No.1-Narayanlal has been rejected.

[2023:RJ-JD:32928]

[CR-207/2022]

(2 of 3)

The ground as raised vide application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC is that the mandatory notice in terms of Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘the Act’) was not served before institution of the present suit. The Court below while rejecting the application held that it cannot be concluded that before institution of the suit, a notice in terms of Section 109 of the Act, had not been served on the person/party concerned.

¶24

In the specific opinion of this Court, even if the finding as reached by the Court below is not found to be correct, the present application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC even otherwise, was not maintainable/to be entertained at the behest of defendant No.1 who is a private party. It is the settled proposition of law that the objection as to non-service of a mandatory notice can only be raised by the party for whose benefit the said provision exists or the party who would be benefited by compliance of the said provision. In Punjilal Damor and Ors. Vs. Chouhan Hari Singh Seva Sansthan Peeth, Distt. Dungarpur and Ors., WLN 2019 (1) Raj.136, it has been held by the Court as under :

¶25

“A perusal of the above would indicate that the issue/objection in this regard can only be raised by the parties for whose protection the provision has been enacted either in CPC and/or in various other provisions and as the same has no jurisdictional effect other party to the suit cannot question the maintainability of the suit on account of alleged noncompliance of provisions of the CPC/Act, inasmuch as, the said non-compliance can always be waived by the party for whose protection the provisions have been enacted. However, the said aspect can only be determined when the protected party puts in

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:32928]

[CR-207/2022]

appearance and/or file its objection and/or written statement.”

¶30

Further, in the matter of Mukesh Chandel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.30/2023)

¶31

decided on 01.08.2023, it has been held by this Court as under :

¶32

“….the objection of non-service of notice has not been taken by the Municipal Authority/Authority but by the private defendants, hence, the same cannot be tenable.”

¶33

In view of settled position of law, the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in question admittedly having been filed by defendant No.1, the same could not have been entertained and hence rightly been rejected by the Court below.

¶34

The revision petition is therefore, dismissed .

¶35

The stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶36

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶37

5-Vij/-

Narayanlal v. Kesar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanlal v. Kesar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kothari Bros Vs Madan Lal and Anr.

Sonali Vs Mangi Lal

C.T.O.Circle C Jodhpur Vs M/S Kalpatru Theater Jodhpur

Deputy Controller of Stores, Nw Railway Vs C.T.O,Spl.Circle II Jodhpur

Khinvraj Vs Baldev Ram

Jaanat Bai Vs Abdul Majid