Uka Ram vs Shembhu Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 8871 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2206/2021

1.     Uka Ram S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
       Village Banta, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.
2.     Ishra Ram S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
       Village Banta, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.
3.     Bhima Ram S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
       Village Banta, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.
4.     Champa Lal S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
       Village Banta, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.
                                                               ----Petitioners
                                 Versus
Shembhu Ram S/o Moda Ram, R/o Sindhaswa Chouhan, Tehsil
Gudamalani, District Barmer.
                                                              ----Respondent
                           Connected With
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11129/2020
1.     Uka Ram S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 60 Years,
       Resident Of Vilage Banta, Tehsil Gudamalani, District
       Barmer.
2.     Ishra Ram S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 55 Years,
       Resident Of Village Banta, Tehsil Gudamalani, District
       Barmer.
3.     Bhima Ram S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
       Resident Of Village Banta, Tehsil Gudamalani, District
       Barmer.
4.     Champa Lal S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
       Resident Of Village Banta, Tehsil Gudamalani, District
       Barmer.
                                                               ----Petitioners
                                 Versus
Shembhu Ram S/o Moda Ram, Resident Of Sindhaswa Chouhan,
Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.
                                                              ----Respondent




                  (Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:42:52 PM)
                                              (2 of 3)                    [CW-2206/2021]



For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. RJ Punia
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. ML Khatri



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                        Order

06/04/2021

     SBCWP No. 2206/2021:
     In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

taken while hearing the matters in Court.

     At the outset, counsel for both the parties submit that the

application preferred by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC

be accepted.

     Counsel for the parties have relied upon the judgment dated

19.07.2013 passed by this Court in Chatar Singh Vs. Additional

District Judge (F.T.) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Anr.,

reported in 2014(3) Civil Court Cases 262 (Rajasthan); relevant

portion whereof reads as follows:-

       "18. The point, which emerges from the judgments, referred to supra,
       is that a plaintiff is duty bound to establish prima facie that the suit is
       within limitation and it is the duty of the Court to see that the suit, if
       barred by limitation, is dismissed irrespective of the plea about it
       having been raised or not. To prima facie show that the suit is within
       limitation, the plaintiff must categorically and specifically plead
       necessary facts in the plaint itself to fulfill his mandatory obligation.
       The plaint must contain the necessary averments, which, when taken in
       totality, amply demonstrates that the suit is within limitation. A mere
       general statement as in the instant case will not suffice the mandatory
       requirements. Thus, in view of this, the trial court has committed an
       error in framing additional issue No.5, referred to herein above and in
       the opinion of this Court, the additional issue on the limitation should
       have been as under:-
               "vk;k   oknh dk okn vUrj fe;kn izLrqr gS ?¼ oknh½"



                        (Downloaded on 07/04/2021 at 08:42:52 PM)
                                                                                (3 of 3)               [CW-2206/2021]


                                         Accordingly, in light of such joint submission the writ petition

                                   is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.01.2021 (Annex.6)

                                   passed by learned Civil Judge, Gudamalani, District Barmer, in

                                   Civil Original Suit No.64/2018 (Shembhu Ram Vs. Uka Ram) is

                                   quashed and set aside. The issue 04-vk;k oknh dk okn ifjlhek vf/kfu;e

                                   ls ckf/kr gksus ls [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS ? ftEes&oknh shall substitute issue

                                   no.4 in the issues framed on 15.10.2018.

                                         It is needless to say that the respondent-plaintiff shall have

                                   all opportunity to lead his evidence regarding the substituted

                                   issue.


                                         SBCWP No. 11129/2020:

                                         In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

                                   taken while hearing the matters in Court.

                                         Counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this

                                   petition, however, seeks liberty to take up all his issues with

                                   JDVVNL.

                                         The liberty sought for is granted.

                                         The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.



                                                                    (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

98-99/Nirmala/Sanjay-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)