Pankaj Rathor S/O Late Shri Hukamsingh @ ... vs Shri Daalchad S/O Shri Bhimsingh, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1562 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Pankaj Rathor S/O Late Shri Hukamsingh @ ... vs Shri Daalchad S/O Shri Bhimsingh, ... on 5 March, 2024

Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

[2024:RJ-JP:11315]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20672/2023

1.       Pankaj Rathor S/o Late Shri Hukamsingh @ Hukamchand
         Ratho, Aged About 59 Years, R/o House No. 260-A/30
         Pratap Nagar, Meyo Link Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2.       Smt. Premlata Rathor Wife Of Late Shri Hukamsingh @
         Hukamchand Rathor, Aged About 76 Years, R/o House No.
         260A/30 Pratap Nagar, Meyo Link Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
                                                        ----Plaintiffs/Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       Shri Daalchad S/o Shri Bhimsingh, R/o House No. 30/200,
         Old Raabdiya Mohalla, Bhatta-Nagara, Ajmer.
2.       Municipal Corporation Ajmer,                  Through    Commissioner
         Municipal Corporation, Ajmer.
                                                 ----Defendants/Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sain For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 05/03/2024

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order

dated 26.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge

No.2, Ajmer (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit

No.76/2019, CIS No.83/2023 whereby, an application filed by the

petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs")

under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC has been

dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit

for mandatory and permanent injunction against the

respondents/defendants (for short "the defendants") wherein, the

respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (for brevity "the defendant

No.1") filed his written statement. Alleging that the defendant

No.1 has incorporated some new and startling facts in his written

[2024:RJ-JP:11315] (2 of 2) [CW-20672/2023]

statement, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9

read with Section 151 CPC for taking on record the rejoinder

submitted by them alongwith the application. The application has

been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated

26.10.2023.

Assailing the order, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits

that since, in the written statement, the defendant No.1 has come

out with new facts which require rebuttal, the learned trial Court

erred in dismissing their application for taking the rejoinder on

record. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the

order dated 26.10.2023 be quashed and set aside and the

application filed by them be allowed.

Heard. Considered.

While dismissing the application, the learned trial Court has

observed that in the written statement, the defendant No.1 has

simply denied the averments made in the plaint and no new fact

has been stated therein. After going through the contents of the

written statement stated to contain new facts and proposed

rejoinder, this Court is not satisfied that the written statement

contains any such new facts which might require rebuttal from the

plaintiffs by way of rejoinder.

In view thereof, this Court has no reason to interfere under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the well reasoned

order passed by the learned trial Court in exercise of its judicious

discretion.

Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/49

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)