Dismissed

Manoj Kumar v. Rajkumar

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CMA/394/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged the rejection of an application for contempt of an injunction order. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court correctly rejected the application because the appellant failed to lead any evidence despite being granted ample time.

What did the court decide?

null

What the court decided

Manoj Kumar Vs Rajkumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6838]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 394/2022

¶4

Manoj Kumar S/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 55 Years, Bidasar, District Churu

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajkumar S/o Bhanwarlal, Ward No. 2, Bidasar, District Churu

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. J.K. Bhaiya
For Respondent(s)	:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

09/02/2024

¶13

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 9.11.2021 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu, in Civil Misc. Case No.09/2017 whereby the application under Order 39 Rule2-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the applicant, has been rejected.

¶14

The case of the applicant was that despite interim order dated 19.02.2007 being in operation, the defendant made material alteration in property in question and hence, the same was a clear disobedience of the orders of the Court. 3. However, the defendant pleaded that the alteration/construction as alleged was raised even before filing of the suit and no new alteration/construction was raised after passing of the interim order dated 19.02.2007.

[2024:RJ-JD:6838]

[CMA-394/2022]

(2 of 2)

No evidence was led by the applicant and hence, the Court below specifically concluded that there was no evidence on record to prove any breach/disobedience of the orders of injunction passed by the Court and hence, proceeded on to dismiss the application as preferred by the applicant.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.

¶20

A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the matter was posted for evidence of the applicant for the first time on 04.07.2017 and since then, time was continuously granted. Ultimately, when no evidence was recorded on behalf of the applicant, the same was closed on 26.10.2021. Meaning thereby, the opportunity to lead evidence was granted to the applicant for more than a period of 3 years, but no evidence was led.

¶21

In view of the above fact, the approach of the Court below cannot be faulted with as it is clear that there was no evidence, whatsoever, available on record, to hold that any disobedience of the orders of the Court was made by the non-applicant/respondent. In absence of any evidence, the Court below had no other option than to reject the application. This Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned and the appeal is hence dismissed, being devoid of merit.

¶22

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶23

8-Taruna/-

Manoj Kumar v. Rajkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Manoj Kumar v. Rajkumar

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

Ajay Jain Vs Abhishek Jain and Anr.

Lalit Kumar Jaju Vs the Executive Officer

Gopi Lal @ Gopi Ram Vs Kana Ram

Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs Smt. Anusuiya Sharma

Reliance G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Smt.Sangeeta and Ors.

Reliance G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Smt.Kiran and Ors.