The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, quashing the impugned order for being non-specified and contradictory. The matter was remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh, reasoned order after hearing all parties.
Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded to trial court to pass fresh order after hearing all parties.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:14960]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 251/2008
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondent 2. Municipal Board, Sanchore through its Executive Officer. 3. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government Department of Local Self Development, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Proforma Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Ms. Akshiti Singhvi |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : -- |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
03/04/2024
The present civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jalore Camp, Bhinmal (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) in Civil Original Case No. 45/2004, whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC filed by the respondent No. 1 and rejected the application filed by the petitioners.
[2024:RJ-JD:14960]
[CR-251/2008]
(2 of 3)
contradictory. Further, it is submitted that in the present matter, before the learned trial Court as many as three applications (No. 1 under Order 22 Rule 4, No. 2 under Order 22 Rule 9 and No. 3 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) were under consideration, however, if the operative part of the order impugned is seen, then it is not clear that which application was allowed by the learned trial Court on cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, it is clear that the order impugned is non-speaking one and the matter deserves to be remanded back to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 3. Despite service, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record as well as the order impugned.
5 fyfeVs'ku ,DV dk laca/k gS] buesa tks dkj.k crk, x, gSa] os leqfpr ugha Bgjrs gSaA nkos dk vne&gktjh esa [kkfjt gksuk Hkh oknh dk gh nks"k gSA muds iwoZ odhy Jh fldUnj vyh dks lwpuk Lo;a oknh dks lwpuk ekuk tk;sxkA izfroknh la- 2 o 3 dh vksj ls nkok ,csV djus ds fy, tks nj[okLr mUgksaus fnukad 23-3-2000 dks izsLrqr dh gS] mlds tokc esa Lo;a oknh us blds in la-1 dks lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj bl dkj.k fnukad 3-2-99 dks izfroknh Nksxk yky dh eR;q gksuk vkSj fnukad 23-3-99 dks bl ckr dh lwpuk U;k;ky; dks vkSj oknh dks nsuk lgh Bgjrk gSA bl izdkj bu gkykr esa chekj gksuk] nwljk odhy djuk vkfn tks vk/kkj oknh us erd Nksxk yky ds okfj'ku dks fjdkMZ ij ykus vkSj nkos ds ,csVesaV dks fujLr djus gsrq crk, gSa] os lHkh vk/kkjghu ik, tkrs gSaA dkuwuu bls eR;q ds 90 fnu esa ,slk djuk pkfg, Fkk] ysfdu mlus ,slh nj[okLr 540 fnu dh nsjh ls is'k dh gSA bl izdkj nj[okLr esa crk, x, dkj.k leqfpr ugha gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa nsjh dks ekQ djus dk Hkh dksbZ vk/kkj ugha curk gSA fQj Hkh U;k;&fgr esa pw¡fd ;gka erd Nksxk yky ¼izfroknh½ ds vykok
(3 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:14960]
[CR-251/2008]
Hkh nwljs dbZ izfroknh nkos esa ekStwn gSa vkSj blfy, mldk iwjk nkok ,csV gks ugha ldrk gS] lkFk gh] vxj vdsys Nksxkyky izfroknh ds fo#) bls ,csV eku ysrs gSa rc vkSj vxj oknh nkok esa lQy gks tkrk gS rks fQj mls ,d vkSj nkok izfroknh Nksxkyky erd ds okfj'kku ds fo#) caVokjk djokus vkSj muds fgLls vyx&vyx djokus gsrq ykyk iM+saxs] ftlls fuf'pr gh vuko';d eqnesckth dks c<+kok feysxk] bu lHkh rF;ksa dks nf"Vxr j[krs gq,] U;k;fgr esa] oknh dh ykijokgh ds fy, ml ij ,d gtkj #- dk gtkZuk yxkrs gq, ;g izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA"
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
3-Dinesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order is non-specified and contradictory, failing to clearly identify which application was allowed.
Whether the High Court should quash the impugned order and remand the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh order with proper reasoning and opportunity of hearing.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Amar Chand
Aasmal
Aasmal
Municipal Board, Sanchore
State of Rajasthan
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
