Allowed¶29

Gram Panchayat Mahanandpur v. Gudiya Meena Wife of Premraj Meena

Rajasthan HC9 Apr 2025CR/71/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision under Section 115 CPC; Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC; rejection of plaint; want of cause of action; alternative remedy/statutory appeal before Appellate Authority; withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to appeal; Asha Sahyogini appointment dispute; mandatory and permanent injunction suit; Sawai Madhopur/Gangapurcity; Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; neutral citation [2025:RJ-JP:15886]; decided 09/04/2025.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; order dated 19.10.2023 of the trial court set aside; suit filed by the plaintiff dismissed for want of cause of action. ¶29

Gram Panchayat Mahanandpur Vs Gudiya Meena Wife of Premraj Meena — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed; order dated 19.10.2023 of the trial court set aside; suit filed by the plaintiff dismissed for want of cause of action.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application of defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, given that the plaintiff, after withdrawing her writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, filed a civil suit which was not maintainable for want of cause of action.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff withdrew the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority but instead filed the suit; therefore the trial court committed an error in dismissing the application filed by defendant No.1, and the petition deserved to be allowed.

¶28

Key takeaways

The order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the trial court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of cause of action.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single Judge (Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, allowed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 71/2024 filed by Gram Panchayat Mahanandpur (defendant No.1 in the suit) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 19.10.2023 of the Additional Civil Judge No.1, Gangapurcity in C.S. No.61/2023, dismissing its application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff, Gudiya Meena, had earlier filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16017/2022 seeking appointment as Asha Sahyogini, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.11.2022 with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority (per the Rajasthan Government Circular dated 09.11.16, grievances regarding such selection/appointment lie before the appellate authority); instead of appealing she filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction. Holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the Order 7 Rule 11 application, the Court set aside the order dated 19.10.2023 and dismissed the suit for want of cause of action. Mr. Anil K. Sharma appeared for the petitioner; none appeared for the respondents despite service.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:15886]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 71/2024

¶4

Gram Panchayat Mahanandpur, Through Its Administration Gram Panchayat.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Gudiya Meena Wife Of Premraj Meena, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Khidarpur, Tehsil Wajirpur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).

¶8

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Gangapurcity.

¶9

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sawai Madhopur.

¶10

District Collector, Sawai Madhopur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anil K. Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: None Present

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶14

Order

¶15

09/04/2025

¶16

This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.1, Gangapurcity in C.S. No.61/2023 whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff) filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants.

¶18

Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

[2025:RJ-JP:15886]

[CR-71/2024]

(2 of 3)

before the trial court as no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing of the present suit because earlier the plaintiff filed S.B Civil Writ Petition No.16017/2022 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.11.2022 with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further submits that instead of filing the appeal before the appellate authority, the plaintiff filed a civil suit which was not maintainable. In this view of the matter, the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, but the trial court has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. So, order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the trial court be set aside.

¶23

Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff(s).

¶24

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and perused the impugned order.

¶25

It is an admitted position that plaintiff filed S.B civil writ petition No.16017/2022 before this Court seeking appointment for the post of Asha Sahyogini. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 04.11.2022 with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. As per the Circular No.P11(3)10(M./ICDS/2011/150819 Jaipur, dated 09.11.16 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, for any grievance regarding selection/appointment on the post of Asha Sahyogini, the appeal shall lie before the appellate authority. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff withdrew the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority but instead of filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the

¶26

[2025:RJ-JP:15886] (3 of 3)

¶27

[CR-71/2024]

¶28

plaintiff filed the suit. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1. So, petition filed by the defendant No.1 deserves to be allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, petition filed by the defendant No.1 is allowed. The order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the trial Court is set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of cause of action.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of.

¶31

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶32

AVINASH GULERIA /106

Gram Panchayat Mahanandpur v. Gudiya Meena Wife of Premraj Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Mahanandpur v. Gudiya Meena Wife of Premraj Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash S/O Ramjilal Vs Vijay Singh S/O Shri Khushala Ram

Jeetmal Jain (Dhaberiya) H.U.F. S/O Parasmal Jain (Dhaberiya) Vs Prakash Chand Chopra S/O Late Shri Jeetmal Chopra

Prakash Chand Bharti Alias Om Prakash Bharti S/O Gordhan Bharti Goswami Vs Mandir Shri Pipli Math

Babu Lal Gupta S/O Late Shri Chhuttan Lal Agrawal, Vs Kamlesh Agrawal S/O Late Shri Chhuttan Lal Ji Agarwal

Samda Devi W/O Late Mohan Lal Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Asha Gupta W/O Shree Dinesh Kumar Gupta