Dismissed¶20

Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Son of Shubhkaran v. Mahant Shri Dineshgiri

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2025CW/20326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; writ petition dismissed; recording defendant's evidence through Court Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 4A read with Section 151 CPC permitted where defendant bears Commissioner's expenses; review petition dismissal upheld; plaintiff's injunction suit; Senior Civil Judge Fatehpur Shekhawati civil suit No.283/2022; petitioner plaintiff deceased represented through legal representative.

What did the court decide?

Because the defendant undertook to bear the expenses of the Court Commissioner, the trial court committed no error in allowing the defendant's application to have his evidence recorded through a Commissioner, nor in dismissing the plaintiff's review petition; consequently the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. ¶20

Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Son of Shubhkaran Vs Mahant Shri Dineshgiri — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:11118]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20326/2023

¶4

Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Son Of Shubhkaran, Residnet Of Fatehpur-Shekhawati, At Present Katni,m.p. (Deceased) Through L.r. Harish Bajaj Son Of Late Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj, Resident Of Fatehpur-Shekhawati, At Present Hari Sadan, Near Satyanarayan Mandir, Rajeev Gandhi Ward Murwara, Katni.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mahant Shri Dineshgiri, Chela Shankargiriji Maharaj Budhigiriji Ki Madhi., Fatehpur-Shekhawati, District Sikar (Raj).

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, Adv
	for Mr. G.D. Bansal,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat,Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 11/03/2025

¶11

This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 21.10.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati in civil suit No.283/2022, whereby review application filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed, which was filed against the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati in civil suit No.283/2022, whereby the application under Order 26 Rule 4A read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondentdefendant (for short ‘the defendant’) was allowed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant in which defendant filed an application under Order 26 Rule 4A read with Section 151 CPC that due to custom, defendant could not attend the trial court for recording the evidence, so

[2025:RJ-JP:11118]

[CW-20326/2023]

(2 of 2)

evidence of the defendant be recorded through Commissioner. The trial court vide its order dated 19.05.2023 allowed the application filed by the defendant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that trial court had committed error in allowing the application filed by the defendant. He filed review petition but the trial court dismissed the same. So, order of the trial court be set aside and defendant be directed to appear before the trial court for adducing the evidence.

¶18

Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that trial court rightly allowed the application filed by the defendant and there is no harm in recording the evidence of the defendant through Court Commissioner because expenses of the Commissioner would be borne by the defendant. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order.

¶20

In my considered opinion, when the defendant is ready to bear the expenses of the Court Commissioner, the trial court had not committed any error in allowing the application filed by the defendant and dismissing the review petition. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶21

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

¶22

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶23

AVINASH GULERIA /86

Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Son of Shubhkaran v. Mahant Shri Dineshgiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Son of Shubhkaran v. Mahant Shri Dineshgiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Gupta S/O Rajendra Gupta, Vs Smt. Gayatri a. Rathore

M/S Bhagwati Jewellers, Vs Arpita Dheer Singh Niharia

Mangi Lal S/O Sheonath Dhakad Vs Smt. Mangi Bai D/O Sheonath W/O Prahalad Dhakad

Abdul Wahid S/O Mohd, Ibrahim Vs Mohd. Munaf S/O Maqbool Ahmed Alias Phool Khan

Gas Authority of India Limited Vs M/S Mahima Real Estate (P) Limited

Anurag Sharma S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma Vs Madan Lal Yadav S/O Late Kalyan Sahai Yadav