Dismissed

Sikandar Mukhia v. Karuna Devi

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2024CFA/9/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil First Appeal as withdrawn. However, granting time for the appellants to vacate, it imposed conditions regarding vacant possession, mesne profit payment, and a stay on execution until January 31, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; time granted to vacate premises by 31.01.2025 upon undertaking to pay mesne profit and ensure peaceful possession.

Sikandar Mukhia Vs Karuna Devi — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:2076]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 9/2023

¶4

Sikandar Mukhia S/o Shri Shyam Mukhia, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Gangor Nagar, Behind Durgesh Cinema, Old Ward No. 25, New 29, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar. (Raj.)

¶5

Lrs of Ram Vinay @ Raman S/o Shri Shyam Mukhia, R/o Gangor Nagar, Street No.5, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar. (Raj.)

¶6

2/1. Veena Devi w/o Sh Ramvinay, Aged about 53 years 2/2 Anil Kumar S/o Ramvinay, Aged about 34 years

¶7

2/3 Sunil Kumar S/o Ramvinay, Aged about 32 years

¶8

2/4 Sanjay Kumar S/o Ramvinay, Aged about 27 years

¶9

2/5 Rohit Kumar S/o Ramvinay, Aged about 24 years

¶10

2/6 Kanchan D/o Ramvinay, Aged about 53 years

¶11

Jeevan S/o Shri Shyam Mukhia, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gangor Nagar, Behind Durgesh Cinema, Old Ward No. 25, New 29, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar. (Raj.)

¶12

----Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

Karuna Devi W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Maheshwari, R/o Gali No. 1, Gangor Nagar, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar. (Rajajsthan)

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. GJ Gupta
	Mr. Nes Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Aakash Kukkar

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶18

Order

¶19

12/01/2024

¶20

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No.68/2015 (CIS No.248/2016) whereby the suit for recovery of possession, mesne

¶21

(2 of 3) [CFA-9/2023]

¶22

[2024:RJ-JD:2076]

¶23

profit and permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff had been decreed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, instead of arguing the appeal on merit, has confined his prayer to the extent of granting time to vacate the suit premises.

¶25

The present Civil First Appeal, thus, stands dismissed as withdrawn, while granting time to the appellant to vacate the suit premises by 31.01.2025, on the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The appellants/defendants shall personally submit an undertaking supported by his affidavit before the trial Court to the effect that on or before 31.01.2025, they shall handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent-plaintiff. They shall also undertake neither to cause any damage to the suit premises, nor to make any alteration and not to assign, subject or in any manner part with possession to any other person and not to put the premises to any use other than the present use and not to cause any nuisance.

¶27

(ii) The appellants shall pay mesne profit of Rs.15,000/-per month as ordered by learned trial Court and will further continue to pay the same on or before 7th day of each month in the bank account of the respondent-plaintiff or in the trial Court till the vacant possession of the suit property is handed over i.e. by 31.01.2025. The arrears of rent and mesne profit, as determined by learned trial Court, if not already paid, shall also be paid by them within a period of three months from today and entire amount, including the amount already deposited on this account, will be disbursed to the respondentplaintiff.

¶28

(iii) On appellant-defendants furnishing the undertaking aforesaid and abiding by the terms and conditions of the order, respondent-plaintiff shall not execute the impugned order till 31.01.2025.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:2076]

[CFA-9/2023]

It is made clear that upon appellants’ failure to comply with any of the conditions aforesaid or violating any terms of the undertaking, the respondent-plaintiff shall be entitled to execute the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court forthwith, besides initiating proceedings for contempt of Court, in accordance with law.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶36

2-Bharti/-

Sikandar Mukhia v. Karuna Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar Mukhia v. Karuna Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gram Panchayat, Oriya Vs Devasthan Board, Sirohi

Narayan and Ors. Vs Chunni Lal

Omdutt Vs Nathmal

Gullu Khan and Ors. Vs Smt. Khemi

Rampyari Vs Baljeet Singh and Ors.

Kamla Vs Sunita Devi