Satish Balana Son Of Hukm Chand ... vs Devendra Singh Son Of Late Amrav ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4597 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 50/2022

Satish Balana Son Of Hukm Chand Balana
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Devendra Singh Son Of Late Amrav Singh Rathor & Anr.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohan Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

07/07/2022

Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this first appeal assailing the

judgment and decree dated 23.12.2021 passed in Civil Suit

No.40/2008 by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby and whereunder his civil suit for pre-

emption, declaration and permanent injunction has been

dismissed on merits.

This Court vide order dated 01.02.2022, issued notices to

respondents and directed that status quo in relation to the

property in question, shall be maintained, as it exists today. This

is an ex-parte order.

Notice of respondent No.1 has been served and he has put in

appearance.

For service of respondents No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3, appellant

moved application for publication of notices in newspaper.

                                                                (2 of 2)                                 [CFA-50/2022]



                                         This   Court   vide     order     dated      04.05.2022,      allowed     the

application of appellant to publish notices for respondent Nos.2/1,

2/2 and 2/3 in daily newspaper, widely circulated in Jaipur City, in

pursuance thereof, appellant has published notices in the

"Rajasthan Patrika" dated 15.05.2022, copy of which has been

placed on record.

It appears that respondents No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3, who did

not contest the case, before the trial court, have not appeared

despite notices, hence presumption of service upon respondents

No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 is made absolute and service is treated as

sufficient. No one has turned up for and on behalf of respondents

No.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3.

Heard counsel for appellant and respondent No.1.

Admit.

Record has already been summoned.

Put up this appeal for hearing in due course.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN /97

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)