Dismissed

Kamlesh Jain Son of Sh. Ghanshyam Lal v. D.B. (International) Stock Brokers Ltd.

Rajasthan HC2 May 2024CW/5608/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable as the impugned order was revisable under Section 115 CPC. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to file a revision petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; stay and pending applications dismissed; liberty granted to file revision under Section 115 CPC.

Kamlesh Jain Son of Sh. Ghanshyam Lal Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5608/2019

¶3

Kamlesh Jain Son Of Sh. Ghanshyam Lal, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of S-4-A, Kabir Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. D.b. (International) Stock Brokers Ltd., Through Sh. Radhyeshyam Bhuwalka. Director And Authorised Representative, Registered Office Kc-72, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Up Jaipur Branch-F-7, Raiser Plaza, Baba Harish Chandra Marg, Jaipur.

¶7

Lakshmi Narayan Daga Son Of Late Shri Durga Das Daga, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of D-581, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶8

Padam Kumar Khaitan Son Not Known, Aged About 47 Years, Advoacte, Office - Khaitan Bhavan, M.i. Road, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: None Present
For Respondent(s)	: None Present

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

02/05/2024

¶14

By way of filing the instant petition against the impugned order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan by which the suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner has been rejected by the Trial Court in exercise of its power contained under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the deficit court fee has not been deposited by the petitioner.

¶15

Admittedly, the order passed by the Trial Court under Order

¶16

7 Rule 11 CPC is a revisable order under Section 115 CPC, but

¶17

[CW-5608/2019]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

instead of filing revision petition under Section 115 CPC the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

In the considered opinion of this court, the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable as the order impugned is revisable under Section 115 CPC. Hence, on this count alone, the petition is not maintainable, and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶21

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed.

¶22

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file revision petition under Section 115 CPC and would be entitled to get benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.

¶23

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶24

DIKSHA MISHRA /139

Kamlesh Jain Son of Sh. Ghanshyam Lal v. D.B. (International) Stock Brokers Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Jain Son of Sh. Ghanshyam Lal v. D.B. (International) Stock Brokers Ltd.

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

Karanveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Purshotam Lal Sultania Vs Nagar Palika Chirawa and Ors.

Shri Vishanu Gaushala Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagchand Soni S/O Shri Kundan Mal Soni Vs Manakchand Jain S/O Late Shri Bhuralal Jain

Ramjilal S/O Panchya Vs Kallu S/O Sampoli

Reach Dredging Limited Vs Eastern Rajasthan Canal Project Corporation Limited