Dismissed

Shanker Lal v. Bhartiya Janta Party and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 May 2023CSA/312/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court dismissed a civil appeal against a lower court order that rejected a suit seeking permanent injunction against political parties for creating obstruction on public roads during a 'Bandh'. The court affirmed concurrent findings that plaintiffs failed to prove misbehaviour and upheld the legal view that injunctions against party bands are unnecessary.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shanker Lal Vs Bhartiya Janta Party and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/014494]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 312/2012

Shanker Lal

----Appellant

Versus

Bhartiya Janta Party and Ors.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Dron Kaushik
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Bissa,for respondent no.10

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Judgment

¶12

10/05/2023

¶13

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh in Regular Appeal No.110/2007 (51/2005) whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.102/2001, rejecting the suit for permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiffs, has been affirmed.

¶14

The present suit was preferred by the plaintiffs in representative capacity for permanent injunction against the defendants-political parties to restrain them from creating obstruction on public road in future and for compensation/damages. The plaintiffs, who are lawyers by profession, averred that on 09.10.2021, a ‘Bandh’ was called by defendant No.1-Bhartiya Janta Party and on the said date, the

[2023/RJJD/014494]

[CSA-312/2012]

(2 of 3)

complete transportation on the public roads was blocked and the plaintiffs were restrained from movement. Because of the said act of the defendant No.1-Party, the plaintiffs were detained on the road against their will for about half an hour and were even misbehaved with. Therefore, the suit with a prayer for compensation of Rs.51/- and for perpetually restraining all the national political parties from obstructing the public roads, has been prayed for.

¶19

The written statements were filed on behalf of defendants No.9 and 10 and it was submitted that the State authorities are duty bound to maintain peace and order whenever such activities are undertaken by any of the parties and the same is always maintained.

¶20

On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed five issues. Both the Courts below reached to a specific finding that no evidence qua the incident has been led by the plaintiffs and the factum of misbehaviour/nuisance or their detention on the date of alleged incident, has not been proved on record. Regarding the relief of perpetual injunction, both the Courts held that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Communist Party of India (M) vs. Bharat Kumar & Ors.; 1998 DNJ [SC] 1 , has specifically held that ‘Bandh’ is unconstitutional and the adherence to the Apex Court judgment is the duty of all including the national parties. Therefore, when once the Hon’ble Apex Court has held ‘Bandh’ to be unconstitutional and the same is the law of the land, no one is required to be directed by any order to

[2023/RJJD/014494]

[CSA-312/2012]

(3 of 3)

follow/comply with the said law. The learned Trial Court while deciding issue No.3 held as under:

¶25

"ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fof/k dk cy j[krs gSa ,oa ykW vkQ nh yS.M gSaA mudh ikyuk djokus ds fy, fdlh dks ikcan djokus dh vko';drk ugha gSA Hkkjr ds mPpre U;k;ky;] mPp U;k;ky; ;k Hkkjr ds fdlh vU; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fof/k dk cy j[krs gSa muds fu.kZ;ksa dh ikyuk djokus ds fy, fdlh dks ikcan djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA lacaf/kr i{k mldh ikyuk djus ds fy, Lo;aeso gh ck/; gSA i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gks fd izfroknhx.k ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh ikyuk uk dj jgs gksA Mh-M-1 vfuy d;ky us dgk gS fd oks can izn'kZu ds nkSjku fof/k vuqlkj nkafMd dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, Lo;a gh rRij jgrs gSa] mUgsa fdlh izdkj ls ikcan djus dh vko';drk gh ugha gSA vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj fook|d la- 3 oknh ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA"

¶26

In view of the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below on issue No.1 which are totally factual in nature, the same does not deserve any interference by this Court. So far as issue No.3 is concerned, the findings as reached to by both the Courts below also being totally in consonance with law deserve no interference. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶27

All the pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶28

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶29

49-Vij/-

Shanker Lal v. Bhartiya Janta Party and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shanker Lal v. Bhartiya Janta Party and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jodh Singh Vs Punjab National Bank

Pawani Devi Vs Pawani Devi

Kishan Singh Vs Tarachand

Likhma Ram Vs Rohitas Mahajan and Anr.

Kanwar Lal Vs Lrs of Bhanwar Lal

Jhabbar Singh Charan Vs State of Rajasthan