Rajasthan High Court
Ram Prasad And Ors vs Gadhiya Alias Girdhari And Ors on 17 December, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 74/2015
Ram Prasad And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
Gadhiya Alias Girdhari And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 409/2015
Ram Prasad And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
Gadhiya Alias Girdhari And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 43/2019
Ram Prasad S/o Late Shri Moti
----Petitioner
Versus
Gadhiya @ Girdhari S/o Shri Behroo @ Bhoriya
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M C Taylor
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
17/12/2021
It is noticed that vide order date 10.11.2021 and order dated
24.11.2021, the counsel appearing in the connected misc. appeal
Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma, Adv. was asked to take instructions as to
whether he wants to appear in the present review petition,
however, he has not appeared on several dates. Today also he has
not put in appearance. Thus, it appears that he has not been
given instructions to appear in the case.
(2 of 3) [CRW-74/2015]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court had
earlier passed a conditional order on the application moved under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by the respondents that if they deposit a sum
of Rs.2 lac as cost by 25.08.2015 the ex parte proceedings shall
be set aside and they would be allowed to contest the suit.
However, in the event of failure, the appeal preferred against the
dismissal of application under Order 9 Rule 13 would also stand
dismissed.
Learned counsel thus submits that on 25.08.2015, as the
respondents did not deposit the sum of Rs.2 lacs, appeals stood
dismissed.
He further submits that this Court had become functus officio
and could not have passed an order subsequently to grant further
time to deposit a fresh demand draft vide order dated 26.10.2015
and such an order goes contrary to the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Bholi Devi (Dead) by LRs Versus Laxman
Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.953/2004 decided on
29.02.2008. In other words he submits that the misc. application
would not lie in a decided appeal.
Learned counsel has also relied on Dwarka Das Versus
State of MP in Civil Appeal No.1209/1992 decided on
10.02.1999, to submit that after passing of the judgment decree
or order, the Court or Tribunal becomes functus officio and cannot
be allowed to vary the terms of the judgment and decree and the
orders passed earlier.
Learned counsel thus submits that the present review
petition has been filed to recall the order dated 26.10.2015.
Issue notice of the review application as well as stay
application, returnable within eight weeks.
(3 of 3) [CRW-74/2015]
In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of order dated
26.10.2015 shall remain stayed and the proceedings in the trial
Court shall not be continued merely on the basis of depositing of
fresh loan after passing of order dated 26.10.2015.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /62
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
