Phusa Ram vs Kedarnath
2022 Latest Caselaw 6970 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6651/2022

Phusa Ram S/o Deepa Ram, Aged About 70 Years, 25 Rjd, Tehsil Chattargarh, Dist. Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Kedarnath S/o Shri Santlal, Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner.

2. Sitaram S/o Satlal, Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner.

3. Shyam Lal S/o Sant Lal, Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner.

4. Sita Devi D/o Santlal, Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner.

5. Prabhu Dayal S/o Kanaram, Sansar Desar, Tehsil Chattargarh, Dist. Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Dinesh Kumar Godara

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order 10/05/2022

This writ petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner

being aggrieved with the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by Civil

Judge, Chhattargarh, District Bikaner (for short 'the trial court'

hereinafter) in a civil suit titled as "Phusa Ram vs. Kedarmal and

others", whereby the application filed on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 and 2 under Section 151 CPC has been allowed and the

reply to the T.I. Application filed on their behalf has been treated

as cancelled and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been granted

permission to file fresh reply to the T.I. Application.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit

for permanent injunction under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC against the

respondents before the trial court. Along with the said suit, the

petitioner also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and

2 read with Section 151 CPC. The said suit was filed by the

(2 of 3) [CW-6651/2022]

petitioner on 31.01.2022 and the trial court after registering the

same, issued summons to the respondents and also issued notices

of the application for temporary injunction.

Reply to the T.I. Application has been filed on behalf of

the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial court on 30.03.2022,

which is taken on record. A separate reply to the application for

T.I. has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5, which is also

taken on record.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 moved an application before

the trial court on 06.04.2022 claiming that they never authorized

two counsel to file power on their behalf in the suit as well as the

T.I. Application and also not filed any reply to the T.I. Application.

It is contended that as a matter of fact they had given blank

power (Vakalatnama) and also handed over certain blank papers

to advocate Shri Yogesh Chugh to file a revenue suit against one

Surja Ram around 4 years ago, however, the said advocate

entered into a conspiracy with other two advocates and plaintiff

filed power on their behalf before the trial court and also

submitted agreed reply to the T.I. Application without any

authorization.

Mentioning the above facts, respondent Nos.1 and 2

prayed that the reply to the T.I. Application filed on their behalf,

without any authorization, may kindly be cancelled and they may

be allowed to file a fresh reply to the said T.I. Application.

The application filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and

2 under Section 151 CPC is opposed by the petitioner and the trial

court after hearing counsel for the parties has observed that

power on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been filed by two

advocates viz. Ravikant and Laxminarayan before this Court on

(3 of 3) [CW-6651/2022]

23.03.2022, however, the order-sheet of the said date reveals that

up to that date summons had not been served upon the

respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also noticed by the trial court that

along with the reply to the T.I. Application, affidavit of the

respondents has not been filed.

After observing the above facts and circumstances of

the case, the trial court has further observed that the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 present in the court have specifically stated that they

have not authorized the advocate concerned to file power and

reply on their behalf and, therefore, it creates a doubt. The trial

court has also observed that Advocate Laxminarayan and

Ravikant, who had filed power on behalf of the respondent Nos.1

and 2 also withdrawn their power and taking into consideration

the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of

justice the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 under

Section 151 CPC is allowed and the reply filed on their behalf by

two advocates, who have withdrawn their powers now, is

cancelled and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed to file

fresh reply to the T.I. Application.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, which have

specifically been dealt with by the trial court, I do not find any

illegality in the impugned order.

Hence, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

55-masif/-PS

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)