Bhanwari Devi vs M/S Ridhi Sidhi Namak Udyog
2023 Latest Caselaw 6158 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1434/2023

1. Bhanwari Devi W/o Late Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Sujangarh District Churu, At Present Udai Apartment, Ajmer Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Akhil Chand S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Hotel Veerda, Near Hp Petrol Pump, Jaipur Bikaner Road, Sujangarh, District Churu.

----Petitioners Versus

1. M/s Ridhi Sidhi Namak Udyog, Nawan, District Nagaur Through Proprietor Smt. Suman Devi W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Chotiya, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 6970, Krishan Kunj Villa, Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Nagaur.

3. General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nagaur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. O.P. Joshi a/w Mr. Karan Joshi

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 17/08/2023 Pronounced on 22/08/2023

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) the impugned order dated 08.09.2020 (Ann.9) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Parbatsar District Nagaur and

(2 of 7) [CW-1434/2023]

order dated 01.12.2022 (Ann.10) passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Parbatsar District Nagaur may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondent no.1 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioners, are that the respondent no.1 filed a

suit for permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge,

(S.D.), Parbatsar, Nagaur, and stated that a Salt Udhyog, namely,

M/s.Riddhi Siddhi Namak Udhyog, was running in Nawa City,

Nagaur; the said Firm is a partnership Firm, and Suman Devi,

Bhanwari Devi, Urmila Devi were equal partners in the Firm. After

dissolution of the Firm, Suman Devi became the sole proprietor of

the Firm, and started her business over the land of khasra no. 622

(new khasra no. 1988/1805) and khasra no.1013/622 (new

khasra no. 1172) at Village Nawan Tehsil Nagaur; despite the

retirement of the co-sharers (partners of the Firm), they are

interfering in the business, and therefore, in the suit, a restraint

was sought. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary

injunction was also filed. The petitioners-defendants filed the

written statement to the said suit.

2.1. The learned Court below vide order dated 31.01.2020 denied

the grant of interim relief. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.1

filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge No.1,

Parbatsar, Nagaur. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated

(3 of 7) [CW-1434/2023]

17.03.2020, granted the injunction and restrained the petitioners

from interfering in the operation of the salt business in question;

whereafter, the petitioners preferred a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No.

5571/2020, decided on 06.08.2020) before this Hon'ble Court,

wherein the Hon'ble Court directed the learned Court below to

decide the temporary injunction application expeditiously, and till

then, the parties were directed to maintain status quo, as existed

on that date, regarding the land(s) in question.

2.2. Thereafter, the learned Court below, upon hearing both the

parties, allowed the temporary injunction application of the

respondent no.1 vide the impugned order dated 08.09.2020, and

restrained the petitioners from interfering in the business of the

respondent no.1. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal

before learned Additional District Judge No.1, Parbatsar, Nagaur,

but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated

01.12.2022. Hence, the present petition has been preferred

claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

respondent had prepared a forged partnership dissolution deed,

because the said deed was dated 01.04.1995, whereas the same

was attested by notary public on 27.03.1995, which clearly

reflects that the respondent no.1 has made forged signature of

others partners.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent

committed a fraud with the petitioners, while preparing the forged

partnership dissolution deed, Form-E and Aadhar Card of

petitioner No.1-Smt. Bhanwari Devi. It was also submitted that

(4 of 7) [CW-1434/2023]

the petitioners filed a complaint in this connection before the

Police Station, Nagaur under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and

120-B IPC, and after due investigation, the police filed a charge-

sheet against Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent- Firm.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have also

filed an application before the General Manager, District Industries

Centre, Nagaur for transfer of the shares, and therefore, the

entire factual matrix of the case, clearly shows that the petitioners

took all necessary lawful actions against the respondent.

3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of U.P. & Ors Vs Ram Sukhi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 733.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that after dissolution of the

Firm, on 20.09.2014, Smt. Bhanwari Devi, and on 01.05.2012

Smt. Urmila Devi & Smt. Chhoti Devi submitted a consent letter

and an affidavit before the competent authority, in favour of Smt.

Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm, whereupon the

objections were invited, but no objection was ever received, more

particularly, from the present petitioners; thereafter, a gazette

notification dated 05.04.2018 was published in favour of

Smt.Suman Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm.

4.1. It was further submitted that Smt. Suman Devi is the

proprietor of the respondent-Firm, which is proved by the receipt

issued against payment of the electricity bills, and due depositions

made to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation.

(5 of 7) [CW-1434/2023]

4.2. It was also submitted that Smt. Suman Devi-proprietor of

the respondent-Firm also filed the Income Tax Returns (ITR) from

time to time since 1995, and the receipt of the years 2013 to

2020-21 clearly substantiates the said fact.

4.3. It was thus submitted that the learned Courts below have

rightly passed the impugned orders in favour of the respondent.

5. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that as per the additional affidavit so filed,

the respondent never opened any bank account in the name of

said Firm nor got issued any PAN Card, and the respondent also

did not file any ITR; Smt.Suman Devi, who is claiming herself as

the sole proprietor of the respondent-Firm opened another

proprietorship Firm with the same name and has shown the ITR

filed in relation to that Firm, thereby, projected a false case before

the Courts of law.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar.

7. This Court observes that the respondent no.1 filed the

aforementioned suit and an application for temporary injunction,

whereupon, the learned Court below vide the impugned order

dated 08.09.2020 allowed the temporary injunction application,

while restraining the petitioners from interfering in the business of

the respondent no.1. The petitioners preferred an appeal, which

was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide the impugned

order dated 01.12.2022.

8. This Court further observes that on a prima facie view, it was

only after the Firm comprising all four partners was dissolved on

(6 of 7) [CW-1434/2023]

01.04.1995, after due procedure and formalities, that Smt. Suman

Devi was declared as the sole proprietor of the respondent-Firm

and other partners stood retired.

9. This Court also observes that the affidavits were submitted

before the concerned authority (Registrar), in favour of Suman

Devi-proprietor of the respondent-Firm, whereupon objections

were invited on 24.03.2018, no objection was received on behalf

of the petitioners; thereafter the gazette notification dated

05.04.2018 was published in favour of Smt. Suman Devi-

proprietor of the respondent-Firm, which clearly show that the

prima facie the case is made out in the favour of the respondent.

10. This Court further observes that Smt. Suman Devi-proprietor

of the respondent-Firm has also repaid the pending loan, which

was obtained from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and also

electricity bills show the name of Smt.Suman Devi as the sole

proprietor of the respondent-Firm, as well as the Income Tax

Returns (ITR) so filed in the name of the respondent-Firm.

Therefore, at this stage, the case for temporary injunction in

favour of the respondent is made out.

11. This Court also observes that the learned Courts below have

rightly granted the temporary injunction in favour of the

respondent no.1 because as per the material on record as well as

evidence produced, clearly show that if the temporary injunction

had not been granted, then the respondent-Firm would have

suffered, amongst others, an irreparable loss.

12. This Court is thus of the opinion that the concurrent orders

of the two learned Courts below do not suffer from any legal

(7 of 7) [CW-1434/2023]

infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court in the

instant petition.

13. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners does not

render any assistance to their case.

14. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into

the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a

fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present

petition.

15. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)