Smt Hemlata Gupta And Anr vs Shri Sanjeev Gupta And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7676 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4866/2017

1.     Smt. Hemlata Gupta W/o Shri Shyamsunder Gupta
2.     Shri Shyamsunder Gupta S/o Shri Niranjanlal Gupta, Both
       Are R/o House No. Amc Old 1180/28 And New 965 A 122
       "anubhav Vila" Purani Chungi Chowki, Near Kapoor Ki
       Bagichi, Nasirabad Road, Ajmer.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     Shri Sanjeev Gupta S/o Shri Ratanchand Gupta
2.     Shri Deepak Gupta S/o Shri Nemichand Gupta
3.     Shri Gagan Gupta S/o Shri Dharampal Gupta, All Are By
       Caste Mahawar, R/o Jalandhar Punjab. 8B Purana Jawahar
       Nagar
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

07/12/2022

This Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution Of India has been filed by the petitioners against the

order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional District

& Sessions Judge, No.5, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.176/2012, titled as

"Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. Vs. Smt. Hemlata Gupta & Ors.", whereby

application under Order 16 Rule 10 CPC filed by the respondent

was allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners had filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) read

with Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court and the said

(2 of 3) [CW-4866/2017]

application was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated

30.11.2007. After that, learned trial court had sent the notices to

Nemichand, Ratanchand and Dharam Pal and partners of the Firm-

Nemichand to produce agreement to sale dated 01.04.1989 but

these persons had not attended the trial Court. Learned counsel

for the petitioners further further submits that after that,

petitioners had filed an application under Order 16 Rule 10 read

with Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court to summon

them by way of bailable warrants. Learned trial Court vide order

dated 01.04.2013 allowed the application filed by the petitioners

and summoned Ratanchand, Nemichand and Dharam Pal by way

of bailable warrants of Rs.500/-. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also submits that after that Nemichand and

Ratanchand had filed an application under Order 16 Rule 10 CPC

that Dharam Pal was died on 18.09.2006 and they had not

possessed the agreement to sale dated 01.04.1989. Learned trial

Court vide order dated 09.12.2016 allowed the application filed by

the Ratanchand and Nemichand and set-aside the bailable

warrants issued against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners

also submits that the learned trial court had committed an error in

exonerating the applicants. So, order of the learned trial Court be

set-aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed relied

upon the judgment passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the

case of Smt. Uchhabkanwar & Anr. Vs. Legal

Representatives of Ramswaroop & Other in S. B. Civil

Revision Petition No.107/1995 decided on 20.02.1995.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and

(3 of 3) [CW-4866/2017]

submitted that the order of the learned trail Court is well

reasoned. Ratanlal and Nemichand did not have the said

documents. So, order of the learned trial Court be upheld.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

respondents and perused the impugned order.

Nemichand and Ratanchand appeared before the

learned trial Court and filed an application under Order 16 Rule 10

CPC and learned trial court in its order clearly stated that so-called

agreement dated 01.04.1989 was not in power and possession of

them. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court rightly

allowed the application filed by the respondent and exonerated

them. So, present petition is devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

Hence, this Civil Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Stay application also stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/61

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)