Rajasthan High Court
Smt Manorama vs Dargaha Committee Ajmer on 11 January, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:1147]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 700/2017
Smt. Manorama W/o Late Shri Subhash Chand Jain, R/o 142/24,
Mahaveer Marg, Opposite Jain Mandir, Kesharganj, Ajmer
Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Dargaha Committee, Ajmer Through President Haji Shri Inayat
Hussain Kureshi, Dargaha Office, Ajmer Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. K. Agarwal, Senior Counsel
with Ms. Sunita Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sahir Hussain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 11/01/2024
This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-
defendant (for short 'the defendant') under Section 100 CPC
against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2017 passed by
Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer (for short 'the appellate
court') in Civil Regular Appeal No.41/2016 (04/2007), whereby
the appeal filed by the defendant has been dismissed and affirmed
the judgment & decree dated 06.11.2006 passed by Civil Judge
(Junior Division), South, First Class Ajmer (for short 'the trial
court') in Civil Suit No.138/2003 decreeing the respondent-
plaintiff's (for short 'the plaintiff') suit for eviction.
Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that the
defendant had filed amendment application before the first
appellate court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC regarding jurisdiction
[2024:RJ-JP:1147] (2 of 3) [CSA-700/2017]
of the civil court to hear the appeal/suit and first appellate court
vide order dated 24.02.2014 allowed the amendment application
filed by the defendant. Learned senior counsel for the defendant
also submits that the appellate court framed the following
additional issue on the amendment application filed by the
defendant vide order dated 13.04.2017:-
1. Whether this court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal/suit?
Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that the
appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant vide
judgment dated 30.08.2017 but had not given any finding
regarding additional issue framed by it regarding jurisdiction to
hear the appeal/suit. Learned counsel for the defendant also
submits that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 came into force
on 01.04.2003. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to hear and
decide the appeal/suit. So, matter be remanded back to the
appellate court to decide the appeal afresh.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendant and
submitted that there is a concurrent finding of fact against the
defendant. So, appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior
counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that the appellate court had framed
the issue regarding jurisdiction to hear the appeal/suit vide order
dated 13.04.2017. A perusal of the judgment dated 30.08.2017
reveals that the appellate court had not given any finding
regarding jurisdiction to hear the appeal/suit as per additional
[2024:RJ-JP:1147] (3 of 3) [CSA-700/2017]
issue framed by it. So, in my considered opinion, judgment dated
30.08.2017 passed by the appellate court deserves to be set
aside.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant is allowed. The
judgment dated 30.08.2017 passed by the appellate court is set
aside.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the appellate
court on 13.02.2024.
The appellate court is directed to decide the appeal afresh as
per additional issue framed by it within six months thereafter, in
accordance with law.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /Tahir/124
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
