Dismissed

Sant Kumar Purohit v. Khayali Ram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2024CW/13237/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a rejection of an application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC. The Court was informed that the original suit filed by the petitioner in 2007 was already decided vide judgment dated 19.12.2014. Finding the writ petition infructuous, the Court dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Stay application and pending applications were also dismissed.

Sant Kumar Purohit Vs Khayali Ram and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13237/2011

¶3

Sant Kumar Purohit son of Shiv Bhagwan Purohit, resident of Ward No. 26, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Khayali Ram son of Nagarmal, resident ward No.26, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu

¶7

Water Works Department through Executive Engineer, Tehasil and District Jhunjhunu

¶8

State of Rajasthan through Collector, Jhunjhunu

¶9

Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jhunjhunu

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rohan Khandelwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Adv.
	Mr. Akshay Sharma, Addl. GC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

16/01/2024

¶15

Aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Jhunjhunu, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶16

By way of passing the aforesaid order, the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶17

Looking to the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2007, this Court thought it proper to summon the report from the concerned Court about the status of the suit.

¶18

Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, learned Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu has sent the report dated 16.01.2024 which

¶19

[CW-13237/2011]

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

indicates that the suit in question has already been decided by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhujhunu vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014.

¶22

Since the suit in question has already been decided, hence, under these circumstances, this writ petition has become infructuous.

¶23

Dismissed as rendered infructuous. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. 7. Office is directed to retain the copy of the report dated 16.01.2024 on record of this file.

¶24

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶25

MR/83

Sant Kumar Purohit v. Khayali Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Kumar Purohit v. Khayali Ram and Ors.

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

Sangita Kankani Vs State Local Self Dep Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Meena S/O Shri Prahalad Narayan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sh. Neelu Rawat S/O Shri Prakash Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sms College of Nursing Vs State of Rajasthan

Chunni Lal S/O Shri Puraram Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Ram Karan Vs Addi Disitr Ct Judge F T and Ors.