Dismissed

Khaju Mohd. v. Anwar Ali

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2024CW/8222/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition seeking review of orders dismissing an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. The court upheld findings that construction alleged to be in breach of an interim order existed prior to said order, based on a 2011 Commissioner's report.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Stay petition and all pending applications were disposed of.

Khaju Mohd. Vs Anwar Ali — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:26308]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8222/2024

¶4

Khaju Mohd. S/o Sultan Khan, Aged About 61 Years, Nimbadi Kothariya, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anwar Ali S/o Madan Khan, Nimbadi Kothariya, Tehsil Degana, District Merta.

¶8

Mustak Ali S/o Madan Khan, Nimbadi Kothariya, Tehsil Degana, District Merta.

¶9

Iqbal S/o Madan Khan, Nimbadi Kothariya, Tehsil Degana, District Merta.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶13

01/07/2024

¶14

The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned District Judge, Merta, District Nagaur in Civil Appeal No.04/2021 (CIS No.04/2021) whereby the order dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Degana, District Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No.16/2016 had been affirmed.

¶15

Vide order dated 02.03.2020, the application under order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC as preferred by the plaintiff petitioner had been dismissed.

¶16

The application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC was preferred by the plaintiff on the premise that the construction of one bathroom, Chabutri & a room etc. was raised by the defendants

[2024:RJ-JD:26308]

[CW-8222/2024]

(2 of 2)

after the interim order dated 21.05.2016 having been passed by the Appellate Court and hence, the same was in breach/disobedience of the said order.

¶21

Heard the Counsel.

¶22

A perusal of the orders impugned reflects that a Commissioner was appointed in the matter and as per the Commissioner’s report dated 02.06.2011, a bathroom, chabutari and a room were existing on the land in dispute. The interim order, whatsoever, was passed by the appellate court on 21.05.2016.

¶23

Both the Courts have specifically concluded that it was not proved on record that the alleged construction was raised after the interim order dated 21.05.2016 having been passed as even the Commissioner’s report of the year 2011 mentioned about the said construction.

¶24

In view of the above specific findings of both the Courts below and in view of the fact that nothing contrary to the same has been pointed out before this Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders impugned and the writ petition is hence, dismissed .

¶25

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶26

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶27

52-KashishS/-

Khaju Mohd. v. Anwar Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaju Mohd. v. Anwar Ali

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

Hakim Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kiran Devi Vs Bank of Baroda

Chena Ram Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Varsha Vs Manager

Smt. Sohni Devi Vs Bhanwarlal

Gram Panchayat Vs State of Rajasthan