Rajasthan High Court
M/S Sawai Madhopur Lodge And Ors vs Forest Department Social Ors on 8 November, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1913/2014
1. M/s Sawai Madhopur Lodge Pvt. Ltd. Sawaimadhopur,
Rajasthan
2. Maharaj Jai Singh son of Late Maharaha Man Singhji , resident
of Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. Maharajh Prithviraj son of Late Maharaj Man Singhji , resident
of Jaipur, Rajasthan
All through their constituted power of Attorney Holder Shri
Shrawan Singh Shekhawat son of thakur Fateh Singhji, aged
about 63 years, resident of C-37, Bharat Marg, Hanuman Nagar,
Khatipura, Jaipaur.
Petitioners/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Forest Department, Social Forestry Swaimadhopur, through
its Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sawaimadhopur.
2. Tehsildar, Tehsil Sawaimadhopur (Land Holder)
3. State of Rajasthan, through the District Collector,
Sawaimadhopur.
4. Nagar Palika Sawai Madhopur through its Executive officer,
N.P. Swai Madhopur
Respondents/ Defendents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma, A.G.C.
Mr. B.K. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Zakir Hussain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
08/11/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the order dated 07.02.2014 whereby the application
submitted by the petitioners-plaintiffs for granting opportunity for
rebuttal of evidence was dismissed by the trial Court.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed
a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-
defendants before the learned trial Court. During pendency of the
(2 of 4) [CW-1913/2014]
suit, this court passed the order dated 08.02.2012 in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.840/2006 directing the trial Court to decide the
suit within a period of six months and when the matter was fixed
for final arguments, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application
under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. for recalling the defendant-witness,
the said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order
dated 09.01.2014, thereafter again the matter was posted for final
arguments on 13.01.2014.
On 13.01.2014, when the matter was fixed for final
arguments, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application under
Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the issues and the
said application was also dismissed by the trial Court on
17.01.2014 and the matter was again posted for final arguments
on 18.01.2014, however the petitioners-plaintiffs again filed an
application for providing opportunity for rebuttal of evidence which
was also dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 07.02.2014.
Hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that the trial
Court has committed serious illegality in dismissing the application
filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs as submitting the evidence in
rebuttal is right of the petitioners-plaintiffs.
In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by this court in the matter of Gad Singh & Ors.
Vs. Phool Chand & Anr. reported in RLW 1997(3) Raj 2044 and
L.M.P. Precession Engineering Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Ram Narayan
reported in 2004(1) W.L.C.232.
Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs have constructed the hotel
(3 of 4) [CW-1913/2014]
over the forest land. Counsel further submits that the suit is
pending before the trial Court since 2005.
Counsel further submits that this court directed the trial
Court to decide the suit within a period of six months but the
petitioners-plaintiffs want to delay the suit proceedings.
In earlier round of litigation in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.840/2006, this court passed the following order on
08.02.2012:-
"1. Petition has come up for consideration
on the application filed by the respondent
No.4 seeking vacation of the interim relief
granted by this court.
2. Heard learned counsel Ms. Aneeta
Agarwal for the petitioners and Mr. MS
Kachhawa for the respondent NO.1 as well
as Mr. B.K. Sharma for respondent No.4.
3. Since the petition involves highly
disputed questions of facts, as such it
would not be maintainable in the eye of
law. However, since the order passed by
this court directing the parties to maintain
status quo is in force since 10.03.2006,
without entering into the merits of the
petition and with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, it is
directed that the trial Court i.e. the learned
Civil Judge, Jr. Division and First Class
Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur shall dispose
of the suit being NO.148/2005 pending
before it as early as possible and within a
period of six months from the date of the
receipt of this order and till then both the
parties shall maintain the status quo as per
the earlier order passed in the present
petition dated 10.03.2006. Both the parties
are further directed to co-operate the trial
Court and not to seek unnecessary
adjournments.
4. With the aforesaid directions, the
petition stands disposed of.
5. Office is directed to send a copy of this
order to the trial Court forthwith."
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(4 of 4) [CW-1913/2014]
This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the issues framed by the trial
court are legal issues and both the parties have submitted their
evidence and therefore in my considered view, the trial Court has
not committed any illegality in dismissing the application
submitted by the petitioners-plaintiffs and the suit is pending
before the learned trial court since 2005 and despite directions
issued by this court for early disposal of pending suit, the
petitioners-plaintiffs are filing unnecessary applications one after
another before the learned trial court just to delay the suit
proceedings; and lastly the petitioners have taken as many as
three opportunities when the matter was fixed for final arguments
and unnecessary delaying the suit proceedings by filing
applications and when those applications were dismissed by the
trial Court, the petitioners have not filed any writ petition against
the orders passed by the learned trial court on such applications,
therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am
not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India in such a
matter.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /46
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
