Dismissed

Shyam Bihari Nahar v. Smt Kaushalya Kanwar

Rajasthan HC10 May 2023CW/10998/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order rejecting an application under Section 10 CPC. The court upheld the Lower Court's view that mutual exclusivity of reliefs in two suits necessitated separate proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shyam Bihari Nahar Vs Smt Kaushalya Kanwar — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/010103]

[CW-10998/2014]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10998/2014

¶6

Shyam Bihari Nahar S/o Late Shri Srilal Ji Nahar, aged about 53 years, resident of Kunhadi, District Kota (Raj.)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Kaushalya Kanwar, wife of Shri Praveen Singh Ji, resident of Sunkheda House, Shivdas Ghat Ki Gali, Rampura District Kota.

¶10

State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Ladpura, Kota

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwini Chobisa, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with Mr. Vishwas Sharma, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

10/05/2023

¶16

The present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution

¶17

of India with the following prayer(s):-

¶18

“It is therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon’ble Court pleased to call for the entire record of the case and:

¶19

“i) by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 05/06/2014 (Annex.7) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1 (North), Kota in Civil Suit No. 66/2012 be set aside and the application (Annex.5) filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC be allowed and;

¶20

ii) Any other writ order or direction which may be deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

[2023/RJJP/010103]

[CW-10998/2014]

(2 of 5)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed two separate suits with respect to the same disputed property in question; one in the Court of SDO, Kota and one in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), North Kota. It is submitted that the parties in both the suits are the same and the subject matter of dispute, that is the disputed property, is also the same in both the suits and similar reliefs are sought by the respondent in both parallel proceedings. Learned counsel contends that the learned Court below has committed a grave error in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 10 of CPC, which has resulted into a situation where two Courts are seized with the same matter, which is against the settled position of law.

¶25

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that even though the subject matter of both the suits is same, as the relief(s) claimed are mutually exclusive, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 10 of CPC.

¶26

Heard and considered.

¶27

It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a speaking order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India extends to keeping the subordinate courts/tribunals within the limits of their authority and

[2023/RJJP/010103]

[CW-10998/2014]

(3 of 5)

seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 327 . In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court has to analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some mistake apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed after consideration of the facts and material on record.

¶32

The operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under:-

¶33

“ nksuks i{kksa dks lquk x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ;g Lohdr fLFkfr gS fd oknh vkSj izfroknh ';kefcgkjh ds fo:) bl U;k;ky; esa ?kks"k.kk gsrq okn izLrqr djus ls iwoZ U;k;ky; ijxuk vf/kdkjh dksVk esa ? kks"k.kk ,oa foHkktu gsrq mlh izfroknh ds fo:) fnukad 16-08-2006 dk nkok is’k fd;kA ;g Hkh Lohdr fLFkfr gS fd nksuksa izdj.kksa esa [kljk ua- 418 dh 2-02 rFkk [kljk ua-419 dh 2-04 dqy 4-06 gSDVs;j ds vk/ks Hkkx ds laca/k esa oknh }kjk nkok is’k fd;k x;kA nksuksa izdj.k esa i{kdkj leku gS okn dh fo"k; oLrq leku gS ijarq iwoZ lafLFkr okn esa okfn;k us izfroknh ds fo:) ;g vuqrks"k pkgk gS fd okfnuh dks mDr vk/ks Hkkx dk [kkrsnkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkdj fodz; i= fnukad 28-032005 esa okfnuh ds fgLls dks izkjaHk ls ’kwU; o izHkkoghu ?kksf"kr fd;k tkdj okfnuh ds fgLls vuqlkj Hkwfe dks fu;ekuqlkj foHkktu fd;k tkosA

¶34

bl izdj.k e s a okfnuh us izfroknh ds fo:) ;g U;k;ky; vuqrks"k pkgk gS fd nhokuh okn la- 140@96 vij ftyk ,oa ls’ku U;k;k/kh’k dze&4 dksVk ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 26-03-2003 rFkk blds vk/kkj ij X;kjlhckbZ dh vksj ls mijksDr Hkwfe dk iatd`r dj;k x;k fodz; i= okfnuh ds vk/ks fgLls ds izfr voS/k ,oa izHkkoghu ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosaA

(4 of 5)

[2023/RJJP/010103]

[CW-10998/2014]

okfnuh }kjk nksuksa U;k;ky; esa fookfnr Hkwfe dks ysdj fHkuu&2 vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gSA ;g Lohdr fLFkfr gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe jsoU;w ys.M gSA jsoU;w ys.M ds laca/k esa foHkktu ,oa [kkrsnkjh dh ?kks"k.kk dk vf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugh gSA blh izdkj lsyMhM Hkwfe dk fodz; i= fujLr djus dk {kS=kf/kdkj ,oa U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh okfnuh ds fglls rd izHkkoghu ?kksf"kr fd;k tkus dk {ks=kf/kdkj jsoU;w U;k;ky; dks izkIr ugh gSA mDr vuqrks"k Exclusive :i ls flfoy U;k;ky; } kjk gh iznku fd;s tk ldrs gSA tSlkfd okfnuh }kjk izLrqr u;kf;d n"Vkar 2014 ¼1½ vkj vkj Vh ist 534 esa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ?kks"k.kk foHkktu ,oa fodz; i= fujLr djus gsrq okn esa df"k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa fodz; i= dks fujLr djus gsrq okn dk fu.kZ; flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk gh fopkfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl izdj.k esa Hkh fodz; foys[k fujLr djus dk eq[; vuqrks"k gSA vr% ;g nkok vUu; :i ls flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA blh izdkj oknh }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n"Vkar vkj- ,y- MCY;w- 1963 es?kjkt cuke xqekukjke esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ls Hkh ge lger gSA tgka oknh }kjk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k pkgk gS rks nkok flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk gh fopkjk/khu gksxk uk fd jsoU;w U;k;ky; }kjkA

¶39

izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n"Vkar 2012 ¼4½ vkj- ,y- MCY;w- fot;flag cuke fo?kkFkhZ o vU; ist 2932 bl izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksxk D;ksfd mDr U;kf;d n"Vkar ds rF; gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gS mDr nkos esa oknh us eq[; vuqrks"k ds :i es [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks"k.kk pkgh xbZ gS ftlds ifj.kke Lo:i Ancillary Relief ds :i esa lsy MhM ds dsaflys’ku dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS tcfd bl izdj.k esa eq[; vuqrks"k ds :i esa lsy MhM ds dsaflys’ku ,oa U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gSA vr% nksuks izdj.k esa Matter in Issue leku ugh gS dksbZ Hkh ,d fopkj.k U;k;ky; nksuksa izdkj ds vuqrks"k iznku djus gsrq l{ke ugh gSA vr% ek= leku i{kdkj ds e/; leku fo"k; oLrq ds fy;s nkok gksus ds vk/kkj ij okfnuh }kjk i’pkr~orhZ flfoy U;k;ky; esa izLrqr nkos dks LFkfxr ugh fd;k tks ldrkA

¶40

vr% izkFkhZ@izfroknh }kjk izLrq izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 10 lh-ih-lh- vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA”

[2023/RJJP/010103]

[CW-10998/2014]

(5 of 5)

Upon analysis of the above, it is noted that the Court of ACJ has duly considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and have given their findings based on cogent reasons. The Court of ACJ has considered that even though the subject matter and parties are common in both the suits, the relief claimed before both the courts can only be granted by that respective Court. The Court of ACJ has acknowledged that it does not have the power to grant the relief claimed qua Khatedari rights, and similarly the Court of SDO does not have power to grant any relief qua validity/cancellation of sale deed. As the primary relief claimed in both the suits could not be granted by one Court, the respondent had initiated two suits before appropriate forums. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the learned ACJ has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at the only logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the ACJ. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the ACJ. The order impugned does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 9. In light of the above, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶45

(SAMEER JAIN),

¶46

ANIL SHARMA /64

Shyam Bihari Nahar v. Smt Kaushalya Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shyam Bihari Nahar v. Smt Kaushalya Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S C M Mundra and Co. Shalimar Vs Court of Commissoner and Ors.

Prabhu Lal Sharma Vs Adj Fast Track No 4 and Anr.

Damanjot Singh Anand S/O Late Shri Tajendra Singh Anand Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaiprakash Devat Son of Shri Madan Lal Devat Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiv Kumar Agrahari Vs Dr Shahina Hussain

Smt Mohini Bai Vs B O R and Ors.