Rajasthan High Court
Bhonri Lal vs Smt Gulab on 9 November, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 202/2007
In
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.717/2002
1. Bhonri Lal son of late Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 37 years,
resident of Kalaon ka Mohalla, Bassi District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Smt. Manphooli wife of Shri Sohan Lal, aged 55 years,
resident of Kalalon ka Mohalla, Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners-plaintiffs
Versus
1. Smt. Gulab Wife of Shri Sohan Lal, aged about 57 years,
resident of Kalalon ka Mohalla, Bassi District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Lal Chand son of Shri Sohan Lal, aged 37 years, resident of
Mohalla Kalal, Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. Shanti Bai daughter of Sohan Lal wife of Chauth Mal, aged 38
years, resident of Chauth ka Barwara, Tehsil and District Sawai
Madhopur (Rajasthan)
4. Murli Bai daughter of Shri Sohan Lal wife of Ramkalyan Pan
Waley, aged 47 years, R/o Akara Ka Rasta, House No.949, First
Crossing Chaukari Top Khana Desh, Jaipur (Rajasthan) since
deceased.
4/1. Shri Shyam Babu s/o Ram Kalyan aged 37 years, resident of
849, Akaraon ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur
4/2. Shri Goving s/o Ram Kalyan aged 37 years, resident of 849,
Akaraon ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur
4/3 Karan ver s/o Ram Kalyan aged 37 years, resident of 849,
Akaraon ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur
4/4. Smt. Chand Bai D/o Smt. Murli Bai wife of Shri Ram
Bharosilal Gupta, Godawari Villa, Plot No.5580, Barkat Nagar
Chauraha, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.
4/5. Smt. Munna Devi D/o Late Shri Murli Bai wife of Shri Radha
Mohan, R/o Puranaghat, Khaniya Agra road, Near Old Chowk,
Jaipur
4/6 Smt. Sadhan Jayaswal D/o Late Smt. Murli Bai, resident of
849, Akaro ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur
4/7. Smt. Gori D/o Late Smt. Murli Bai wife of Shri Mukesh
Jagrawat, outside of Kdelhi Darwaja, Ajwar
5. Rukmani Bai D/o Sohan Lal, w/o Gokul, R/o Akarar ka Rasta
Chaulari Topkhana, Desh Jaipur.
----Respondents-defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
(2 of 3) [CRES-202/2007]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
09/11/2022
1. This civil restoration application has been filed to restore the
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.717/2002 which was dismissed in
default and for non-prosecution wayback on 3.6.2005.
2. It appears from record the revision petition was filed
challenging the order dated 30.5.2001 passed in civil suit for
partition which was filed wayback on 18.12.1979. In the order
dated 30.5.2001, the trial Court has observed that the preliminary
decree dated 13.10.1995 was passed as per compromise between
parties. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved application for preparation of
final decree. Court Commissioner's report was submitted without
procuring valuation of suit property. Both parties objected
thereagainst in respect of valuation of suit property. The objection
filed by respondents-defendants were withdrawn but then
plaintiffs moved an application for getting valuation of suit
property. The trial Court dismissed the application vide order
dated 30.5.2001 and observed that since plaintiff has not pursued
the application for final decree, dismissed the application for
preparation of final decree.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kattukandi Edathil
Krishnan Vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan [AIR 2022 SC
2841], has clearly held that proceedings of preparation of final
decree are continuation proceedings pursued to the preliminary
decree and for which no separate application is required to be
filed.
4. In the present case, since it appears that partition has taken
place by compromise and on the basis of compromise, preliminary
decree dated 13.10.1995 was passed.
(3 of 3) [CRES-202/2007]
5. This Court thinks that since a period of near about more than
20 years have passed after filing of the revision petition,
therefore, it is not just and proper to restore the revision petition.
However, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan (supra), it is open for
parties to proceed for preparation of final decree, if the
circumstances of the present suit so warrants.
6. With aforesaid observations, the restoration application stand
disposed of.
7. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN/45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
