Dismissed

Nanagram Son of Late Shri Prabhatilal, v. M/S Surgitech

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2023CR/86/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by a scheduled caste defendant challenging the dismissal of his aplikasiation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The High Court held that Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is not applicable because the suit sought specific performance of a contract regarding land to be allotted as compensation in acquisition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition and the pending application were dismissed.

Nanagram Son of Late Shri Prabhatilal, Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 86/2022

¶3

Nanagram Son Of Late Shri Prabhatilal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 60 And 63, Opposite Shanti Vihar Mahal, Jagatpura, Jaipur. At Present Village Mahal, Teshil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶4

---Defendant No.1/Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Surgitech, Partnership Firm Through Partner Dharmendra Dutt Sharma Son Of Devdatt Sharma, Residento 482, Oriental Bank, Arcade Colony, Near Gyan Vihar University, Jagatpura, Jaipur And Office At 25, Chetak Marg, Near J.k. Lone Hopital, Jaipur, At Present Office At C-58-A, Ayodhya Enclave, Mahaveer Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Smt. Rekha Gupta Wife Of Shri Ram Babu Gupta, Resident Of A 216, Central Spine Yojna, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Palintiffs / Respondent No. 1 And 2. ...Plaintiffs/Respondents No.1 and 2

¶8

Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Zone No. 9, Jda, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶10

Shanti Vihar Vikas Samiti, Through Secretary Shri Kamal Bhatra Son Of Late Shri Kalyan Sahay Sharma, Resident Of 32, Shanti Vihar, Gram Mahal Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Defendant Nos.2 to 4

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. R. K. Agarwal, Senior Counsel with Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Adhiraj Modi, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. L. L. Gupta, Adv. Mr. R. A. Katta, Adv. Mr. Ramniwas Saini, Adv. on behalf of
		Mr. Anurag Shukla, Adv.
		Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶14

Order

¶15

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 05.01.2023 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 09.01.2023

¶16

This instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.10,

¶17

(2 of 4) [CR-86/2022]

¶18

Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer in Civil Suit No.32/2022 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant/petitioner (for short ‘the defendant’) has been dismissed.

¶19

The brief facts noticed for disposal of the instant petition is that plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 and 2 (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) have filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant in which plaintiffs stated that by way of agreement dated 11.07.2019, defendantNanagram by caste Balai had executed the agreement of land measuring 3.22 hectares situated in Village Mahal, Tehsil Sanganer which was acquired by JDA for handing over the possession of 25% developed land being allotted to him by JDA in lieu of compensation.

¶20

The defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court but trial court vide order dated 06.04.2022 dismissed the application filed by the defendant.

¶21

Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that a bare reading of the averment made in the plaint by the plaintiffs clearly reveals that the defendant-Nanagram is by caste Balai and as per the Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, land belongs to the person who is of scheduled caste community cannot be transferred to member of general caste, so, agreement entered between the parties is ab initio void and cannot be enforceable. Learned trial court has not considered the provision of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, so, suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by law. Learned counsel for the defendant also submitted that defendant clearly mentioned in the application that so called agreement is

¶22

(3 of 4) [CR-86/2022]

¶23

fraud and cannot be enforceable. Learned counsel for the defendant also submitted that as per the agreement, it is totally uncertainty that which land would be received by the defendant as a compensation in lieu of land acquisition proceedings. So, order of the trial court be set aside and plaint filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Kuju Collieries Ltd. Vs. Jharkhand Mines Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1974) 2 SCC 533 ; (2) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by legal reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601 ; (3) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 and (4) Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti reported in (2015) 7 SCC 601 .

¶25

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that a bare reading of the plaint clearly reveals that plaintiffs are not going to purchase the land belongs to scheduled caste person. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that provision of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not applicable in present proceedings. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that the agreement clearly reveals that land which would be allotted to the defendant is subject matter of the suit not the land which was acquired. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that objection regarding tenancy Act was not taken before the trial court. It is a totally new ground in the revision petition, so, this ground cannot be considered at this stage. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that trial court

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CR-86/2022]

¶28

has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, revision petition be dismissed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary Samiti Limited Vs. Jagdeeshprasad Meena & Ors. in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.639/2012 decided on 22.01.2013 ; (2) Ramniwas Vs. Bhairav Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. in S.B. Civil Revision No.150/2016 decided on 03.02.2017 and (3) Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. Shrimat Mahaveer Buildcon Private Ltd. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.81/2013 decided on 04.11.2016 .

¶30

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

¶31

It is an admitted position that plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance. They sought the performance of the contract land which was going to be allotted in acquisition proceedings as a compensation. So, in my considered opinion, provision of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not applicable in this proceeding. So, learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, present petition is being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Pending application also stands dismissed.

¶33

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶34

Jatin/94

Nanagram Son of Late Shri Prabhatilal, v. M/S Surgitech

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanagram Son of Late Shri Prabhatilal, v. M/S Surgitech

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

State of Rajasthan Thr Dist Collector Vs Sumer

Prahlad S/O Ganpat Lal Kumawat, Vs Girdhari Lal, S/O Ganpat Lal Kumawat

Rajendra Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Gangaram Choudhary Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited through the Chief Regional Manager (Retail Sales)

Urban Improvement Trust, Vs Zila Wakf Committee

Bhuri Singh S/O Shri Gangaram Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Home Department

Lokesh Kumar S/O Shri Kalicharan Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Home Department