Rajasthan High Court
Govind Singh S/O Shri Madan Singh vs Altratec Nathdwara Cement Ltd on 18 October, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2151/2022
1. Govind Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Bhagega, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Tejaram S/o Shri Birbal Prasad, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Khora,
Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Appellants/defendants
Versus
1. Altratec Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Neem Ka Thana, Cement Works
Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Through Manager Manoj
Vishwakarma, Aged 46 Years, Altratek Nathdwara Cement Ltd.
Neem Ka Thana, Cement Works Sirohi, Tehsil Neem (Raj.) Ka Thana,
District Sikar (Raj.)
...Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Surendra Kr. Yadav S/o Shri Bhagirath Mal Yadav, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Dhani Dyodawali, Tan Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana,
District Sikar (Raj.)
3. Darshan Lal Bhatt S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Altratec Nathdwara Cement Ltd. Neem Ka Thana, Cement Works
Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
4. Shankar Lal S/o Shri Lalchand Jakhad, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Kairwali, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
5. Jagdish Jat S/o Shri Fulchand, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Dhani
Dyodawali, Tan Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
6. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Chala, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
7. Sayar Mal Verma S/o Shri Mamchand Verma, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj)
8. Gyarsi Lal S/o Shri Richhpal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Sirohi, Tehsil
Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
9. Madan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Nandaram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
10. Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Chhagan Lal Sharma, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Mawanda Kalan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar
11. Rakesh Yadav S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Proforma Respondents/Defendants
(2 of 4) [CMA-2151/2022]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
18/10/2022
This Civil Misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-
defendants (for short, 'the defendants') against the judgment
dated 07.07.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Neem
Ka Thana, District Sikar (for short, 'the Appellate Court') in Civil
Regular Appeal No.53/2022, whereby the said Court allowed the
appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff)
and set aside the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Civil
Judge, Neem Ka Thana (Sikar) (for short, 'the trial Court') in CIS
No. 34/2022, whereby the trial Court had allowed the defendants'
application under Order 7 Rule 11(D) read with Section 151 CPC
and rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the defendants has drawn the
attention of the Court towards prayer made in the appeal filed by
the plaintiff before the appellate Court and submits that the
plaintiff prayed before the appellate Court that the application filed
by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be rejected, but in
the impugned judgment dated 7.7.2022, it has nowhere been
mentioned that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is
rejected. In this view of the matter, the application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC having not been rejected by the appellate Court, the
judgment dated 7.7.2022 passed by the appellate court is a
remand order, against which the present civil misc. appeal has
been filed.
Heard. Considered.
(3 of 4) [CMA-2151/2022]
The appellate Court vide its judgment dated 7.7.2022
allowed the appeal and set-aside the order dated 09.05.2022
passed by the trial Court observing that the civil Court has the
jurisdiction to try the suit. Relevant part of the judgment dated
07.07.2022 is reproduced as under:
^^mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Li"V gS fd oknh }kjk izLrqr okn dh
lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj flfoy U;k;ky; dks gh izkIr gSA
vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr
vkns'k fnukad 09-05-2022 fof/k o rF;ksa ds vuq:i ugh gksus ls iq"V
fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy mijksDr
foospukuqlkj Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
vkns'k
ifj.kker% [email protected] vYVªkVSd ukFk}kjk lhesUV fyfeVsM] uhe
dk Fkkuk dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy fo:) izR;[email protected]
lqjsUnz dqekj oxSjg Lohdkj dh tkdj nhokuh okn i= vYVªkVSd
lhesUV cuke lqjsUnz oxSjg] eqdnek uEcj [email protected] esa fo}ku
fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vihyk/khu vkns'k e; fMØh fnukafdr
09-05-2022 o izkFkZuk i= vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vYVªkVSd lhesUV cuke
lqjsUn oxSjg eqdnek uEcj [email protected] esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }
kjk ikfjr vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukafdr 09-05-2022 vikLr fd, tkrs
gSa rFkk okn i= e; izkFkZuk i= vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk fof/kor~ lquokbZ
gsrq fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks fHktok, tkus ds vkns'k fn, tkrs gSaA
v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk vfoyEc
ykSVkbZ tkosA mHk; i{kdkjku fnukad 25-07-2022 dks fopkj.k
U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr jgsaA^^
From a perusal of the judgment dated 07.07.2022, it is
revealed that by the said judgment, the appellate court allowed
the plaintiff's appeal and set aside the order dated 09.05.2022
passed by trial Court, whereby the trial Court allowed the
defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected
the plaintiff's plaint. Meaning thereby the application under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected and resultantly, the suit would
proceed. In this view of the matter, the appellate court also
directed the trial court to proceed with the suit and the temporary
injunction application.
(4 of 4) [CMA-2151/2022]
In my considered view, against rejection of the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, civil misc. appeal under
Order 43 Rule 1 (u) CPC is not maintainable and the same is
dismissed as not maintainable.
Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, all
pending applications also stand dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK/60
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
