Murlidhar Vs Managing Director, R S R T C J — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Murlidhar Vs Managing Director, R S R T C J — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim/procedural orders only: Application (No.1/2023) for conversion of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 42/2006 into a civil misc. appeal allowed ('Office to proceed further'); service of notice upon respondent No.2 in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 18/2009 dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellants; appeals listed on 09.09.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether Application (No.1/2023) seeking conversion of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 42/2006 into a civil miscellaneous appeal should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

For the reasons mentioned in the application, Application (No.1/2023) for converting the revision petition into a civil misc. appeal is allowed, and the Office is directed to proceed further.

Ratio / Principle

Service of notice upon respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali, single judge), Order/Judgment dated 26/08/2025, disposing of procedural business across seven connected filings: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 153/2013, 2788/2005, 5786/2011, 154/2013 and 155/2013, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 42/2006 and S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 18/2009, involving Murlidhar Rao M D Fabricon P Ltd / M/s Fabricom Pvt Ltd and R S R T C Jaipur. (i) Application (No.1/2023) for converting the revision petition into a civil misc. appeal was allowed, for the reasons mentioned in the application, with directions to the Office to proceed further; (ii) in the Review Petition, since learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no relief was wanted against respondent No.2, service of notice upon respondent No.2 was dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellants; and (iii) the appeals were listed on 09.09.2025. No statute and no precedent is cited anywhere in the text, and no substantive question of law is decided; the document is a purely administrative/interim order. Advocates recorded: Mr. R.K. Daga with Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan for the appellant(s); Mr. J.K. Singhi for the respondent(s).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 153/2013

Murlidhar Rao M D Fabricon P Ltd

----Appellant

Versus

M D R S R T C Jaipur And Others

----Respondent Connected With

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2788/2005

R S R T C

----Appellant

Versus

M/s Fabricom Pvt Ltd

----Respondent S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 42/2006 ----Appellant Versus Director, R S R T C J, R S R T C J R S R T C J ----Respondent S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 18/2009

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 42/2006

Murlidhar

Managing Director, R S R T C J, R S R T C J R S R T C J

Managind Directore R S R T

----Appellant Versus Murlildhar Rao Febricon Pvt Ltd ----Respondent S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5786/2011

Murlildhar Rao Febricon Pvt Ltd

R S R T C

----Appellant

Versus

M/s Fabricom Pvt Ltd And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 154/2013

Murlidhar Rao M D Fabricon P Ltd

----Appellant

Versus

M D R S R T C Jaipur And Others

----Respondent S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 155/2013 Murlidhar Rao M D Fabricon P Ltd

[CMA-153/2013]

(2 of 2)

----Appellant

Versus

M D R S R T C Jaipur And Others

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. R.K. Daga with
	Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. J.K. Singhi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Judgment / Order

26/08/2025

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 42/2006:-

Heard on application (No.1/2023) for converting the revision petition into civil misc. appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Office to proceed further.

S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 18/2009:-

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want any relief against respondent No.2. So, service of notice upon respondent No.2 may be dispensed with.

In view of the above, service of notice upon respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellants.

List these appeals on 09.09.2025.

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

Gaurav/74-80