Jagdish Rao @ Jagdish Singh S/O ... vs Smt. Suman Chaudhary W/O Satvir ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 614 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 165/2022

Jagdish Rao @ Jagdish Singh S/o Maidhan, Aged About 63 Years,
R/o Plot No. 127 S.b Vihar, Swez Farm, New Sanganer Road,
Sodala, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     Smt. Suman Chaudhary W/o Satvir Singh, R/o Plot No.
       126 S.b Vihar, Swez Farm, New Sanganer Road, Sodala,
       Jaipur. At Present Plot No. 44/45, Govind Nagar, 36
       Dukaano Ke Samne, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Metropolitan.
2.     Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Through Chief Executive
       Officer, Pandit Deendayal Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road,
       Jaipur.
3.     Commissioner And Authorized Officer, Nagar Nigam Jaipur
       Heritage, Pandit Deendayal Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road,
       Jaipur.
4.     Deputy Commissioner, Planning Second Nagar Nigam
       Jaipur Heritage, Pandit Deendayal Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk
       Road, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mahesh Sharma, Adv. with Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : None Present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 12.01.2023

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 17 .01.2023

By way of this revision petition under Section 115 CPC,

petitioner-defendant(for short 'the defendant') has challenged the

order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge

(2 of 4) [CR-165/2022]

No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan 1st (for Short 'the trial Court) in Civil Suit

No.11/2021 titled as "Suman Chaudhary Vs. Nagar Nigam & Ors.,

whereby application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the trial

Court while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

filed by the defendant totally ignored the fact that the respondent

No.1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff) had no cause of action.

Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the

plaintiff wrongly claimed that she is owner of plot No.126 and

having possession over it. Learned counsel for the defendant

further submits that the Jaipur Development Authority (for short

'the JDA') in the year 2002 had not approved the plot No.126 in

S. B. Vihar Scheme, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. Learned counsel

for the defendant also submits that the plot No.126 was not in

existence at the time of approval of the plan by JDA. Learned

counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff could

have filed the suit against the housing society which remedy was

not availed by her. Learned counsel for the defendant further

submits that the JDA in the year 2002 accepted the layout plan

and chalked out the road on the maximum part of plot No.126 and

remaining part was depicted in the map as non approved. The

defendant had purchased the remaining part of the strip of land

from Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, as per law. Learned counsel for the

defendant further submits that the plaintiff had not given a notice

as per the legal requirement to file the suit against the Nagar

Nigam. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the

plaintiff had made a reference and appeal before the JDA, Tribunal

and JDA Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff

(3 of 4) [CR-165/2022]

vide order dated 21.11.2017. The said order became final, so,

plaintiff cannot challenge the same suit by way of suit. Learned

counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff had

prepared a forged patta with the connivance of the members of

the society because her name was not mentioned in the list of the

members. So, order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the trial Court

be set-aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance

upon the following judgments:- (1) Rohit Singh Vs. Vishambhar

Dayal Shukla reported in 2014(2) RLW 1367(Raj.); (2)

Durga Bai Vs. Ayyub Begum reported in 2019 (5) ALD 243

(SC); (3) State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. All India

Manufacturers Organization & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC

1846; (4) Dahi Ben Vs. Arvind Bhai Kalayan Ji Bhanushali

L.R. and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3310; (5) Ragvendra

Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by L.R.

reported in 2019 (2) WLC SC Civil 53; (6) Temple of Thakur

Shri Mathur Das Ji, Chotabhandar Vs. Shri Kanhiya Lal &

Ors. reported in 2008(3) WLC Raj.534; (7) K. Akbar Ali Vs.

K. Umar Khan reported in LL 2021 SC 114; (8) T.

Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal in SLP(Civil)

No.4483/1977 decided on 14.10.1977; (9) Rajendra

Bajoriya Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalaln & Ors. reported in AIR,

SC 4594.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order.

Learned trial Court while dismissing the application filed

by the defendant clearly stated that the objections raised by the

defendant with regard to res-judicata and cause of action accrued

(4 of 4) [CR-165/2022]

to the plaintiff could be decided only after leading the evidence by

the parties. Plaintiff had sought relief to declare the lease deed

granted in favour of defendant as a null and void and declaration

of owner-ship in her favour. Learned trial Court in its order clearly

stated that the said relief could only be given by the Civil Court.

So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed

any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So,

the present revision petition being devoid of merits is liable to be

dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

Pending application/s, if any, also stand/s dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/106

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)