Rajasthan High Court
Ramesh Chand Gupta And Ors vs Smt Rajkumari Badaya And Ors on 4 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:10785]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 158/2016
1. Ramesh Chand Gupta S/o Shri Radheyshyam Gupta, R/o
6/67 Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur At Present D-404, Road
No.9, Vki Industrial Area, Vishakaram , Jaipur
2. Mahesh Gupta S/o Shri Radheyshyam Gupta, R/o 6/67
Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur At Present D-404, Road No.9, Vki
Industrial Area, Vishakaram , Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Rajkumari Badaya W/o Shri Rajendra Badaya, House
No. 6/68 Radha Marg, Vidhyadhar (Wrongly Shown As
Vidhyar In The Cause Title) Nagar, Jaipur
2. Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, Jln
Marg, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anubhav Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None for respondent No.1
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. for
Mr. Rahul Lodha, Adv. (Proforma)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 04/03/2024
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners-
defendant Nos.1 and 2 (for short 'the defendants') under Section
115 CPC against the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by Civil Judge
(East), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 63/16, whereby
the trial court has dismissed the defendants' application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the
respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit
[2024:RJ-JP:10785] (2 of 3) [CR-158/2016]
for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants
and respondent No. 2 in which defendants filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but trial court wrongly dismissed the
application vide order dated 02.09.2016. Learned counsel for the
defendants further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is
barred by law because as per the averments made in the plaint,
the defendants had raised the unauthorized construction in
violation of the building bye-laws framed by the respondent No. 2.
Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that as per the
Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, the JDA tribunal is
authorized to adjudicate the matter. So, order of the trial court be
set aside, the application filed by the defendants be allowed and
suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
Despite service of notice upon respondent No.1, none is
present on behalf of her.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.
By way of civil suit, the plaintiff sought permanent and
mandatory injunction regarding unauthorised construction raised
by the defendants in violation of the building bye-laws framed by
respondent No.2. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court
wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So,
present revision petition filed by the defendants deserves to be
allowed.
[2024:RJ-JP:10785] (3 of 3) [CR-158/2016]
This revision petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The
application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is
converted into Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and trial court is directed to
return the suit to plaintiff for its presentation before proper Court.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin/Tahir/02
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
