Rajasthan High Court
Varun Khandelwal vs Medical Designs India Pvt Ltd And Ors on 17 January, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:2604]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 626/2017
Varun Khandelwal S/o Mr. S K Khandelwal F-E-20, Malviya
Industrial Area Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Medical Designs India Private Limited Through Its Director
Mrs Saroj Dhawan, At A-4, Mahavir Udyam Marg,
Bajajnagar Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Saroj Dhawan Director Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd, A-
4, Mahavir Udyam Marg, Bajaj Nagar Jaipur Presently
Residing Ata-4A, Mahavir Udyan Marg, Bajaj Nagar Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Anil Tambi S/o Radheshyam, R/o A-222, Govind Marg,
Maliviya Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Riico Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan Premises, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. S. Bagadia, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Adv. for RIICO
Mr. Manoj Pareek, Adv. for respondent
No.3
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 17/01/2024
The appellant-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') has preferred
this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated
14.07.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the appellate court') in Civil
Regular Appeal No.67/2017, whereby judgment and decree dated
17.03.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge (East), Jaipur
[2024:RJ-JP:2604] (2 of 4) [CSA-626/2017]
Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') rejecting the
plaintiff's suit was upheld.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff had
filed a suit before the trial court for permanent injunction,
declaration and recovery of possession in which he stated that
defendant No.1 was allotted Plot No.F-28N in Malviya Industrial
Area, Jaipur by defendant No.4 but defendant No.4 could not start
business. So, he gave the said plot to the plaintiff on rent, where
the plaintiff started fabrication business. The defendants had
colluded in the matter and took possession of the disputed
premises from the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also
submits that goods of the plaintiff were also lying in the premises.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that defendant No.4
had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and submitted
that as per Section 10A of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964, the civil court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the present civil suit. Learned counsel for
the plaintiff also submits that the trial court as well as appellate
court wrongly came to the conclusion regarding jurisdiction of civil
court because plaintiff only sought to declare the proceeding dated
10.08.2016 as null and void. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also
submits that only civil court can grant the relief of declaration. So,
judgment dated 17.03.2017 passed by the trial court and
judgment dated 14.07.2017 passed by the appellate court be set
aside and trial court be directed to decide the suit filed by the
plaintiff as per law.
Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and
[2024:RJ-JP:2604] (3 of 4) [CSA-626/2017]
submitted that the trial court as well as appellate court had not
committed any error and the courts below rightly rejected the suit
and dismissed the appeal because civil court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the present suit/appeal because by way of declaration,
plaintiff wanted to declare the proceeding of the Estate Officer as
null and void. So, the appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the
defendants.
It is an admitted position that defendant No.1 had taken
disputed premises on lease from defendant No.4. Defendant No.1
had not fulfilled the conditions of the lease deed. So, defendant
No.4 had initiated proceeding before Estate Officer under the
Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Act, 1964. Defendant No.1 had filed an application before Estate
Officer to deliver the possession of the disputed premises. Estate
Officer had passed the order as per law and possession of the
disputed premises was taken over on the basis of order passed by
the Estate Officer. As per Section 10A of the Rajasthan Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964, the civil
court had no jurisdiction. By way of present declaratory suit,
plaintiff wanted to declare the proceeding of the Estate Officer as
null and void which is not permissible as per law. So, in my
considered opinion, the trial court as well as appellate court had
not committed any error in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC and dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff.
So, present appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal
as no substantial question of law as suggested by counsel for the
[2024:RJ-JP:2604] (4 of 4) [CSA-626/2017]
plaintiff in the memo of appeal does arise nor there is any other
substantial question of law in the instant appeal.
The Civil Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /AVG/123
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
