Court dismissed an application seeking modification of an earlier writ order to mark counsel for a respondent whose name was inadvertently omitted from the cause list.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:39449]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 200/2023
Arya Samaj Mandir, Maharishi Dayanand Marg, Old Jail Road, Bikaner Through its Pradhan Mahesh Chandr, By Caste Soni, R/o Mahrishi Dayanand Marg, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshvardhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
17/11/2023
An application has been filed by the counsel for the applicant for modification of the order dated 24.08.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8039/2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an application was filed for impleading Dinesh Kumar Kochar as party respondent in the writ petition. However, the name of the counsel for the respondent was not shown in the cause list at the time of hearing and the matter was finally decided vide order dated 24.08.2021. In such circumstances, the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by this Court may kindly be modified and presence of counsel for respondent may be marked.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the material available on record.
[2023:RJ-JD:39449]
[WMAP-200/2023]
(2 of 2)
The present civil writ petition was decided on merits vide order dated 24.08.2021 after the contesting respondents were heard at the time of final arguments. Since the application for impleading Dinesh Kumar Kochar as party respondent, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2021, therefore, no case is made out to mark the attendance of the counsel for the applicant.
Hence, the present application filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
54-Ishan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order dated 24.08.2021 in a related writ petition should be modified to mark the presence of counsel for a respondent whose counsel was not shown in the cause list.
Arya Samaj Mandir
State Of Rajasthan
Bikaner Nagar Nigam
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
