Dismissed

Ravinder Singh Bhati v. Prithvi Singh @ Dhanraj Bhati

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2024CW/12983/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a suit filed by his brother under Section 177 of the Rajasthan Tenathy Act as maintainable. The High Court noted the petioner had appealed before the Revenue Appellate Authority and therefore dismissed the writ petition without interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and stay application were dismissed; the Revenue Appellate Authority directed to consider the stay application.

Ravinder Singh Bhati Vs Prithvi Singh @ Dhanraj Bhati — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:36634]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12983/2024

¶4

Ravinder Singh Bhati S/o Lt. Sh. Banshilal Ji Bhati, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Jalorio Ka Bas, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Prithvi Singh @ Dhanraj Bhati S/o Lt. Sh. Banshilal Ji Bhati, R/o Plot No.9, Banshivihar Volony, Gokul Ji Ka Pyau, Lalsagar, Jodhpur.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CS Kotwani For Respondent(s) : -

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

03/09/2024

¶14

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed

¶15

thus:-

¶16

“(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 04.07.2024 (Annex.9) & 26.07.2024 (Annex.14) may kindly be quashed and set aside and application under Section 212 may kindly be ordered to be rejected and suit preferred by the respondent No.1 under Section 177 along with application under Section 212 are also liable to be quashed and set aside having been preferred without jurisdiction. (ii) Any other order of direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fits and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passe in favour of the humble petitioner.

[2024:RJ-JD:36634]

[CW-12983/2024]

(2 of 3)

(iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent-plaintiff who is brother of the petitioner, was the owner of the adjacent land and he does not have any right, title and interest in the subject land.

¶22

Inviting Court’s attention towards the provision of section 177 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), Mr. Kotwani argued that the proceedings under section 177 of the Act are maintainable only at the instance of a landholder in the eventualities mentioned under section 177 of the Act and the proceedings under such section cannot be undertaken at the instance of a stranger.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the suit so filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the trial Court has granted an interim order without considering the correct position of the law. He submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal thereagainst with the specific plea that the suit in question is not maintainable but the appellate Court without taking the jurisdiction question into consideration has observed that ex-parte interim order is not required to be passed in such case.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on account of the interim order passed by the trial Court, petitioner’s right to enjoy his own property has been jeopardized and therefore, proceedings of the trial Court be declared illegal and/or the interim order passed by the trial Court be vacated.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds some substance in what has

[2024:RJ-JD:36634]

[CW-12983/2024]

(3 of 3)

been submitted by Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, but, since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal alongwith the stay application before the Revenue Appellate Authority, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, as the Revenue Appellate Authority is already seized of the appeal.

¶30

It is informed by Mr. Kotwani that the next date of hearing before the Revenue Appellate Authority is 08.10.2024 and respondent-plaintiff has been served with the notice.

¶31

The Revenue Appellate Authority is, therefore, directed to consider the petitioner’s stay application including his contention regarding maintainability of the suit preferably on the next date of hearing. The appeallate authority shall pass order in accordance with law, without being influenced by the disposal of the writ petition and/or any observation made herein.

¶32

The writ petition so also stay application stand dismissed accordingly.

¶33

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶34

369-raksha/-

Ravinder Singh Bhati v. Prithvi Singh @ Dhanraj Bhati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh Bhati v. Prithvi Singh @ Dhanraj Bhati

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

Bashir Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Guddi Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Surja Ram Vs Union of India

Chittorgarh Pratapgarh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd.

Pemaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Singh Vs State of Rajasthan