Dismissed

Mafi Dayalji Maharajn Devotee Ram Prasad S/O Ram Swaroop Meena, v. Purushottam Das Chela Ramdayal Das Dadupanthi

Rajasthan HC5 Nov 2024CRW/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition challenging an order declaring a Section 92 CPC application non-maintainable, the court held that it cannot sit in appeal over its own order. The court distinguished a Civil Suit maintainability issue from the Section 92 application dismissal, finding no error apparent on record to warrant review.

What did the court decide?

The instant review petition along with pending application is dismissed.

Mafi Dayalji Maharajn Devotee Ram Prasad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:46997]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 11/2024

¶4

Mafi Dayalji Maharajn Devotee Ram Prasad S/o Ram Swaroop Meena, R/o B-7, Moti Vihar, Chak Getor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶5

Dayalji Maharaj Through Devotee Ram Lal S/o Narayan Lal, R/o Parasnth Nagar, Dheerawato Ki Dhani, Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Purushottam Das Chela Ramdayal Das Dadupanthi, R/o Kushal Nagar, Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶9

M/s Pink City Agro Industries Partnership Firm, Through Somkaran Saini S/o Shri Govind Narayan Saini R/o Nandpuri, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Office Plot No. 17, Durga Vihar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

M/s Pink City Agro Industries Firm Through Anil Solanki S/o Shri Sohan Lal Solanki, R/o Plot No. 132, 133, Keshav Vihar, Gopalpura, Jaipur

¶11

M/s Pink City Agro Industries Partnership Firm, Through Dulheram Meena S/o Ramswaroop Meena, R/o Plot No. 17, Durga Vihar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶12

Smt Soniya Meena W/o Shri Dulheram Meena S/o Ramswaroop Meena, R/o Plot No. 17, Durga Vihar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶13

Tehsildar, Sanganer District Jaipur.

¶14

Dy. Registrar Sanganer I, Registration And Stamp Office, Sangarner First, Nagar Nigam Road, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶15

Settlement Department Thruogh Commissioner, Khasakhoti, Circle, Jaipur.

¶16

State Of Rajasthan Through Collector, Collectorate, Banipark Jaipur.

¶17

Jaipur Development Authority, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Secretary, J.d.a, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.N. Kumawat with Mr. Nawal Kishore Saini

¶20

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Gupta, senior advocate with Ms. Surbhi Agarwal

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

[2024:RJ-JP:46997]

[CRW-11/2024]

(2 of 4)

05/11/2024

Instant S.B. review petition is preferred by petitioners applicants dissatisfied from order dated 09.01.2024 in S.B. CFA No.364/2022 passed by this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that they have filed a civil suit with an application under Section 92 CPC but learned Additional District Judge not only dismissed the application under Section 92 of CPC has also dismissed the civil suit and drawn a decree. He also submitted that this civil suit is independently maintainable before the trial court and the plaintiffs have right to maintain civil suit on cause of action without application under Section 92 of CPC. He further submitted that order dated 09.01.2024 is required to be recalled with regard to observation about maintainability of civil suit and also application under Section 92 of CPC. At last, he submitted that if entire order is recalled and matter is re-heard then he will apprise the court about legal position in the first appeal.

¶29

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned senior advocate appearing for private respondents and submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record therefore the order cannot be recalled. He further referred the order passed by this Court and the trial court and submitted that the order was passed under Section 92 CPC and not with regard to entire suit. He also referred the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Ram Sarup Lugani and Ors. Vs. Nirmal Lugani and Ors. (2023:DHC:000004) .

¶30

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned senior advocate for respondents. Perused the record along with judgment as cited by learned senior advocate for respondents.

[2024:RJ-JP:46997]

[CRW-11/2024]

(3 of 4)

In case of S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1167-1170 of 2023, judgment dated 24.02.2023), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 has observed that while hearing the review petition the Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Thus, the re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. Further, relying upon judgment in case of M/s. Shanti Contractors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam State Electricity Board 2020 (2) SCC 677, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue question which have already been addressed and decided. Similarly, in case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer and Anr. (Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620/2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661/2020, judgment dated 31.10.2023.), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the judgment of Constitution Bench in case of Beghar Foundation through its Secretary and Anr. Vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. (2021) 3 SCC 1 held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of Co-ordinate Bench or Larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

¶35

A perusal of impugned order dated 16.05.2022 clearly indicated that learned Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metro-I has dismissed application under Section 92 CPC but it has not dismissed civil suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The order itself reflect that the permission to file civil suit was rejected and it resulted into automatic dismissal of civil suit. Learned trial court has erroneously drawn a decree from order of 16.05.2022 and order under Section 92 of CPC is not a decree.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:46997]

[CRW-11/2024]

This Court while passing the order on 09.01.2024 has considered entire issue with reference to Section 96 of CPC and we have opined that CMA under Section 104 CPC is maintainable but not a regular appeal under Section 96 of CPC.

¶40

A perusal of order passed by learned trial court indicated that it has only dismissed the application under Section 92 CPC which was filed to allow presentation of suit but if there is any other ground on which entire cause of action can be maintained then this order is not hit by principle of resjudicata.

¶41

Herein there is no error apparent on face of record, therefore no ground to review the order passed by this Court, on 09.01.2024. 10. In view of aforesaid, instant review petition along with pending application, if any, is hereby dismissed.

¶42

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶43

PREETI VALECHA /741

Mafi Dayalji Maharajn Devotee Ram Prasad S/O Ram Swaroop Meena, v. Purushottam Das Chela Ramdayal Das Dadupanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mafi Dayalji Maharajn Devotee Ram Prasad S/O Ram Swaroop Meena, v. Purushottam Das Chela Ramdayal Das Dadupanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naim Ahmed Vs Ajab Singh and Others

Smt. Saraswati Bulani W/O Suresh Chand Bulani Vs Manager, the Kota Central Coperative Bank Ltd.

Ajay Kumar Luharuwala Vs Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.

Rohitash Singh Son of Bhagwana Ram, Vs Ramkaran Son of Mangtu Ram

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Sh. Kishan S/O Late Sh. Kundan

Saayed Ali Vs State and Ors.