Dismissed

Shakuntala Devi v. Hansraj Chawla

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2024CR/9/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of an application to restore a withdrawn suit claiming property share under the writ of Section 151 CPC. The High Court affirmed the trial court after observing the petitioner had sworn she did not want a share in the property during cross-examination and had applied to claim no share subsequently.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is rejected. The order dated 19.10.2019 refusing to restore the suit is upheld.

Shakuntala Devi Vs Hansraj Chawla — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:695]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 9/2020

¶4

Shakuntala Devi W/o Late Shri Manohar Lal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o House No. 41/11-A, Shanti Nagar, Hissar (Haryana)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hansraj Chawla S/o Late Shri Rampyara Mal, R/o House No. 30 C Block, Near Police Station, Shri Ram Enclave, Padampur, District Sriganganagar.

¶8

Devraj Chawla S/o Late Shri Rampyara Mal, R/o Village And Post Chack 4-J.j., Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanhaiyalal Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hans Raj

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶12

Judgment

¶13

05/01/2024

¶14

The present civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sri Ganganagar in civil misc. case No. 29/2018 whereby, the learned trial Court rejected the application under Section 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffpetitioner preferred the suit for cancellation of the will dated 25.09.1987. During the pendency of the suit, an assurance was

[2024:RJ-JD:695]

[CR-9/2020]

(2 of 4)

given by the defendants-appellants that they would hand over the share of the plaintiff-petitioner to her in case she withdraws the suit.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the assurance, a compromise deed was executed between the plaintiff and defendants and in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff-petitioner vide order dated 09.12.2017. It is submitted that after withdrawing the suit, the defendants have not complied with the terms of the compromise deed and have not given her share of property to the petitioner as yet. Therefore, the petitioner was left with no option but to prefer an application under Section 151 of the CPC for restoring the suit.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court without taking into consideration the aforesaid factual background of the case, has wrongly rejected the application under Section 151 of the CPC vide impugned order dated 19.10.2019. It is submitted that against the impugned order dated 19.10.2019 refusing to restore the Civil Original Suit, the revision petition is maintainable in view of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Kuldeep Singh

¶22

versus Virendra Singh & Anr. reported in 2014(2) Civil Court Cases 532 (P&H) and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Jet Ply Wood Private Ltd. & Anr. versus Madhukar Nowlakha & Ors. reported in 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 54 (S.C.) . It is therefore, submitted that the present civil revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 19.10.2019 may be quashed and set aside and the learned

[2024:RJ-JD:695]

[CR-9/2020]

(3 of 4)

trial Court may be directed to restore the civil original suit to its original number.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendantsrespondents submits that the suit was simply withdrawn by the plaintiff-petitioner and there was neither any assurance giver nor any compromise deed executed between the parties which stated that the petitioner would be given her share of property in case she withdraws the suit. It is submitted that the learned trial Court after considering each and every aspect of the matter has rightly rejected the application under Section 151 of the CPC and the order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, vice or irregularity. Therefore, it is submitted that the present civil revision petition may be rejected.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

The learned trial Court has specifically recorded in the impugned order that on 14.11.2017, the plaintiff-petitioner in her cross-examination has specifically stated that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and on such statement, her evidence was closed. Thereafter, a separate application was preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner wherein too, she stated that she does not want to claim any share in the disputed property. The learned trial Court recorded that there is no reason to believe that on the said application, forged signature of the petitioner is appended.

¶30

In view of the above, it is clear that learned trial Court after considering each and every aspect of the matter has rightly rejected that application under Section 151 of the CPC and has

[2024:RJ-JD:695]

[CR-9/2020]

(4 of 4)

also rightly refused to restore the suit preferred by the plaintiffpetitioner. In my considered opinion, the order impugned does not warrant any interference.

¶35

Accordingly, the present civil revision petition is hereby rejected.

¶36

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶37

96-Dinesh/-

Shakuntala Devi v. Hansraj Chawla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Devi v. Hansraj Chawla

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

Jetha Ram Vs Khayali Ram and Anr.

M/S. Equipment India Jodhpur Vs Kayasth General Sabha Jodhpur

Ghan Shyam Vs Jagdish Chandra

M/S. Paschimi Raj. Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Vs M/S. Agarwal Ice Factory, Falna

Kewal Chand Vs Lrs of Sohan Lal

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Narsinga Ram and Ors.