Dismissed

Lrs of Ramesh Chand v. Lrs of Tara Chand and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2024CRW/44/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a review petition filed against a Second Appeal order dismissing a suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that the record shows the petitioner admitted the suit covered both temples, negating the claim of a clear error apparent on the face of the record, and dismissed the review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as the record did not disclose any error apparent on its face given the petitioner's admission.

Lrs of Ramesh Chand Vs Lrs of Tara Chand and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28222]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 44/2018

¶4

Mohan Lal Sevak S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand, B/c Sevak, R/o Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶5

Chandra Prakash Sevak S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand, B/c Sevak, R/o Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶6

Smt. Raju Devi W/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand, B/c Sevak, R/o Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶7

Smt. Raju Devi W/o Late Shri Ramesh Chand, B/c Sevak, R/o Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Smt. Lalita W/o Late Shri Tara Chand, R/o Near Kalyan Rai Ji Temple, Kot Mohalla, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶11

Smt. Rekha D/o Late Shri Tara Chand, W/o Shri Rajesh Bhanwar Lal, R/o Movdev Town, Jalaramteen No. 39, First Floor, Parbat Patiya, Surat, Gujarat

¶12

Shri Govind Narayan S/o Shri Himmat Mal, B/c Sevak, R/ o Kot Mohalla, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶13

Shri Shiv Ratan S/o Shri Radha Kishan, B/c Sevak, R/o Kot Mohalla, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶14

Shri Kamal Kishore S/o Shri Chhagan Lal, B/c Mishra, R/o Kot Mohalla, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶15

Shri Poonam Chand S/o Shri Radha Kishan, B/c Sevak, R/ o Kot Mohalla, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶16

Shri Govind Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Ratan, B/c Mishra, R/o Kot Mohalla, Deedwana, District Nagaur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit For Respondent(s) :

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

11/07/2024

[2024:RJ-JD:28222]

[CRW-44/2018]

(2 of 3)

The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 66/2012 whereby, the second appeal filed by the petitioner plaintiffs was dismissed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appellant plaintiff Ramesh Chand had filed the civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants only with respect to the temple of “Padaya Mata” situated in Kot Mohalla as he was not allowed to enter into the said temple, however, the learned trial court while deciding the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2011 wrongly held that the suit was filed with respect to temples situated at Kot Mohalla, Deedwana as well as one situated at Namak Kharda, Balia. The said judgment and decree was upheld by the court of Additional District Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur and thereafter, this Court also dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioners and affirmed the judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the said SLP was withdrawn by the petitioner as he stood advised to file review petition before this Court. Accordingly, this present review petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶27

It is argued by the petitioner that the suit was filed only with respect to the temple situated at Kot Mohalla but both the courts below as well as this court have wrongly held that the suit was filed with respect to both the temples, therefore, there is error apparent on the face of record in passing the impugned judgments and same are liable to be reviewed.

[2024:RJ-JD:28222]

[CRW-44/2018]

(3 of 3)

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record.

¶32

The petitioner plaintiffs had filed the second appeal against the judgment and decrees dated 18.05.2011 as well as 30.11.2011 passed by the courts below. A perusal of the memo of appeal would go to show that the petitioner plaintiffs had sought to raise four substantial questions of law in the appeal which reads as under :-

¶33

“(i) Whether for filing a suit for permanent injunction, it is necessary that the plaintiff must be the sole Pujari of the temples, and as such, the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below stands vitiated ? (ii) Whether the judgment of the learned Revenue Court can be ignored by saying that it has not been marked Exhibit and especially, the genuinity of the certified copy has not been disputed?

¶34

(iii) Whether the observation of the learned First Appellate Court that since the cause of action has only been disclosed regarding one temple whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim injunction of both the temples against wrong doers?

¶35

(iv) Whether findings (sic) the learned Courts below on Issues No.1 & 2 is perverse?”

¶36

A perusal of aforesaid goes to show that the petitioner plaintiffs themselves admit that the suit was filed with regard to both the temples and not just one situated at Kot Mohalla. Therefore, no case for review of the order dated 16.12.2014 is made out. The review petition is hereby dismissed.

¶37

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶38

22-BJSH/-

Lrs of Ramesh Chand v. Lrs of Tara Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs of Ramesh Chand v. Lrs of Tara Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar

Pappulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalpna Kanwar Vs Dushyant Singh

Praveen Bano Vs Jahur Mohammed @ Chhota

Girdhar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishore Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan