Taj Kanwar And Others vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3632 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 594/2011

Taj Kanwar And Others
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And Other
                                                                ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 633/2011 Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And Anoth

----Appellant Versus Tej Kanwar And Others

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Daulat Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

09/05/2022

Both these second appeals have assailed the judgment and

decree dated 21.05.2011 passed by Court of Additional District

Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil regular appeal

No.12/2009 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2000

passed in civil suit No.235/1991 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior

Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City (West), Jaipur.

Having heard counsel for both parties.

Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that both appeals

require consideration and are admitted on following substantial

questions of law:-

"(a) whether both courts below have committed illegality and jurisdictional error in even decreeing the

(2 of 2) [CSA-594/2011]

partial suit for permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs, when the suit land had already been acquired and possession was taken by the JVVNL for the public purpose?

(b) whether two courts below have comiited illegality and jurisdictional error in not passing the decree for injunction for the entire area i.e. 50' X 130' instead of decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for partial area of 20' X 130'?"

This Court, vide order dated 04.11.2011 has already passed

the interim stay order to this effect "In the meanwhile, both the

parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the

property in dispute with the further direction not to alienate the

disputed property."

The interim stay order dated 04.11.2011 is made absolute

during course of hearing of these appeals.

Accordingly, both stay application stand disposed of.

Either of the parties is at liberty to move an application for

early hearing of appeals.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/94-95

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)