Buta Singh vs Sunil Kumar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 670 Raj

(1 of 2) [CFA-186/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 186/2019

vihykUV %& 1- cwVkflag iq= Jh eqU'khflag mez 71 o"kZ] tkfr tVfl[k fuoklh txrflag okyk ¼>ksVkaokyh½ rglhy jk;flag uxj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj ¼jkt-½

---- oknh c uk e jsLiksUMsUVl %& 1 lquhy dqekj iq= Jh egsUnz dqekj mez 47 o"kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh 6 tSM+] rglhy o ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ¼jkt-½ 2 jkeizrki iq= Jh jkepUn mez 52 o"kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh rk[kjkaokyh] rglhy ineiqj] ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ¼jkt-½ 3 dks'kY;knsoh iRuh Lo- Jh jk/ks';ke mez 77 o"kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh okMZ ua- 16] iqjkuh vkcknh] Jhxaxkuxj ¼jkt-½ 4 lqHkk"k xksnkjk iq= Lo- Jh jk/ks';ke mez 54 o"kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh okMZ ua- 16] iqjkuh vkcknh] Jhxaxkuxj ¼jkt-½ 5 jkds'k xksnkjk iq= Lo- Jh jk/ks';ke mez 51 o"kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh okMZ ua- 16] iqjkuh vkcknh] Jhxaxkuxj ¼jkt-½ 6 uhye iq=h Lo- Jh jk/ks';ke mez 49 o"kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh okMZ ua- 16] iqjkuh vkcknh] Jhxaxkuxj ¼jkt-½ 7 vthrdqekj iq= Jh /keZiky mez 40 o"kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh iapdkslh] rglhy vcksgj] ftyk QkftYdk ¼iatkc½ 8 HkkxhjFk iq= Jh euhjke mez 69 o"kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh pkSVkyk] rglhy Mcokyh] ftyk fljlk ¼gfj;k.kk½

---- izfroknhx.k

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

11/01/2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel

appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 6 on caveat.

(2 of 2) [CFA-186/2019]

The trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule

11 CPC on coming to the conclusion that the suit was barred by

limitation.

Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the

averments made in the plaint, have been ignored alongwith the

specific stipulation in the agreement in this regard and, therefore,

the judgment of the trial court is ex-facie incorrect.

In view of the submissions made, admit. Issue notice.

As learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Matoria appears for the

respondents No. 3 to 6, issue notice to respondents No. 1, 2, 7

and 8 only.

Heard on stay application.

During the pendency of the present appeal, status quo as it

exists today pertaining to the title and possession of the suit

property i.e. the shop No.9, which is now alleged to have been

numbered as shop No.8, shall be maintained by the parties.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

191-PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)