Rajasthan High Court
Srilal Son Of Bhagwat vs Smt. Bhaggo Wife Of Shri Pyaray on 24 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
(1 of 4) [CW-1337/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1337/2019
1. Srilal Son Of Bhagwat, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of
Village Bhagora, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan).
2. Rama Son Of Bhagwat, Resident Of Village Bhagora,
Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Anja Wife Of Niranjan, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhagora, Tehsil Weir, District
Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
4. Smt. Sanjey Wife Of Bharto, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhagora, Tehsil Weir, District
Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Bhaggo Wife Of Shri Pyaray, Resident Of Village
Bhagora, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
2. Bhagwat Son Of Sarman, Resident Of Village Bhagora,
Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). (Since
Deceased)
3. Kallo Wife Of Ram Singh, Resident Of Village Bhagora,
Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
4. Radha Wife Of Ratti, Resident Of Village Dhudheri, Tehsil
Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
5. Keshi Wife Of Batto, Resident Of Village Dhudheri, Tehsil
Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
24/08/2021
The petitioner has assailed the order of learned Additional
District Judge dated 21.12.2018 whereby the application moved
(2 of 4) [CW-1337/2019]
under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC filed by the plaintiff-
respondent/s was allowed. At this stage, the case was listed for
final arguments.
Learned counsel submits that by the said application, the
respondent/s sought to bring on record an order passed by the
Tehsildar dated 10.01.2012 directing for attachment of the
property in terms of the order passed by S.D.O. dated
29.12.2011.
Learned counsel submits that the entire attachment of
property was initially on account of an order passed by the trial
Court dated 23.12.2011. Against which, a revision was filed and
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, Bharatupur
vide judgment dated 31.01.2017 set aside the order dated
23.12.2011 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for
rehearing of the case and therefore, the purpose of placing the
said attachment proceedings dated 10.01.2012 was redundant.
Learned counsel submits that even otherwise at this stage when
the case is to be finally argued, there was no occasion for the
respondent/s to move an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3)
CPC especially when the order dated 10.01.2012 was very much
in the knowledge since 2012. The case has proceeded and
evidence has already been recorded.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 10.01.2012 ought to be
taken into consideration for disposal of the case, no evidence is
required to be laid and therefore prejudice would be caused by
directing the document to be placed on record and therefore,
order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference.
(3 of 4) [CW-1337/2019]
Learned counsel further submits that the order passed in revision
and placed before this Court, Smt. Anja Vs. State, has no relation
with the order dated 10.01.2012.
I have considered the submissions.
Perusal of the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Bayana, Bharatpur shows that the
learned Judge has set aside the order dated 23.12.2011 by which
the property was taken over and the attachment proceedings were
directed to be initiated. The Court has also observed that
attachment proceedings were unjustified as no hearing was given
to the consent parties. The parties in the said order of revision are
the same as before the Tehsildar in the order dated 10.01.2012
which is a consequential order.
Keeping in view of above aspects and taking into
consideration that order dated 10.01.2012 and attachment order
passed in pursuance of the earlier order dated 23.12.2011 which
has already been set aside by the learned Additional District Judge
on 31.01.2017. No purpose would be served in taking the
document on record.
Keeping in view thereof, this Court is of the firm view that
the order dated 23.01.2018 whereby an application under Order 7
Rule 14 (3) CPC was allowed, is not based on merits and no
reason has been assigned. The Court has failed to notice that the
order dated 31.01.2017 passed in revision by the Court of ADJ to
set aside the attachment proceedings. In view thereof, the order
dated 21.12.2018 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings
shall now continue in the trial Court.
(4 of 4) [CW-1337/2019]
All pending applications also stands disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
TN/28
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
