Ranveer Kumar Mahiya vs Narendra Kumar ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6744 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27711-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 679/2023

Ranveer Kumar Mahiya, Proprietor, Aged About 42 Years, M/s Mahiya Akshay Ujala Private Ltd., Aadsr, Shridungargarh, District Bikaner

----Appellant Versus

1. Narendra Kumar S/o Sh. Dulichand Beniwal, R/o House No. 123, Aazad Nagar, Sagar Road, Bikaner

2. Pariyojana Adhikari Akshay Urja Nigam, Ganganagar Chowaraha, Bikaner.

3. Prabandhak Nideshak Rajasthan Akshay Urja Nigam, E-

166, Udhishtar Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. K.R. Saharan

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

02/09/2023

There is a delay of 66 days in filing the present appeal.

An application has been moved under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act.

The reasons mentioned in the application explaining the

delay for filing the appeal appear to be just and reasonable and,

therefore, we accept the same and condone the delay in filing the

appeal. The application stands allowed.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 06.04.2023

passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the order passed by

Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner dated 24.05.2022 directing the

appellant-petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs. 60,000/-

[2023:RJ-JD:27711-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-679/2023]

within a period of one week from the date of order to the

respondent, failing which, the appellant was required to pay

interest @ 6% per annum from the date when the application was

filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the dispute

is with regard to the quantum of amount to be paid by the

appellant and, therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalat did not have

the jurisdiction. He, therefore, contends that the order passed by

the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 24.05.2022 cannot sustain and

deserves to be set aside. For the same reason, the judgment

passed by the learned Single Judge is also assailed.

We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Single

Judge and do not find any ground for interfering with the order

passed.

Perusal of the judgment would show that the same has been

passed on the basis of the records which were summoned from

the Permanent Lok Adalat. The operative part of the judgment

reads as follows:-

"A perusal of the record indicates that there is contradiction in the stand taken by the petitioner in the written statement, wherein on the one hand, it has been denied that he has received any payment and in the same breath, it has been admitted that he has been received Rs.50,000/-.

Besides the above, before the PLA, an agreement was signed by the parties settling the dispute on the applicant making payment of Rs.45,521/-, the cheque was deposited by the applicant before the PLA, which aspect clearly fortifies that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the settlement as noticed by the PLA failed on account of the involvement of the third party i.e. father-in-law of the applicant, who did not agree to provide passage for setting up of plant.

In view of the above fact situation, wherein the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner is factually

[2023:RJ-JD:27711-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-679/2023]

incorrect, the order passed by the PLA in the circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted on the purported plea sought to be raised by the petitioner.

There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed."

In light of the above, the present appeal being devoid of

merits stands dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

37-Shahenshah/Anil Singh-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)