Rajasthan High Court
Neelgagan Construction Pvt. Ltd vs Sukhi Jeevan Aawasiya Hitkari Sanstha on 19 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:13381]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 76/2016
1. Neelgagan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered
Office At Kolkata And Having Its One Of Its Offices At
Sukhi Jeevan Complex, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Through Its
Authorized Signatory- Mr. Manak Chand Rawavat.
2. Shri Poonamchand Rathi S/o Late Shri Ram Narain Rathi,
Aged About 70 Years, R/o Sukhi Jeevan Complex, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur Presently Residing At 15, Noor Mal Lohia
Lane, Kolkata.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Sukhi Jeevan Aawasiya Hitkari Sanstha, Through
Secretary Shri Vinod Kasera S/o (Late) Shri Bholaram
Kasera, Aged 56 Years, R/o Sukhi Jeevan Complex, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur.
2. Shri Arun Rathi S/o Shri Poonamchand Rathi, R/o F-10,
Sukhi Jeevan Complex, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Since
Deceased).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yellop Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv. for
Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Adv. with
Mr. G. S. Shekhawat, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 19/03/2024
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners-
defendant Nos.3 and 4 (for short 'the defendants') against the
order dated 08.01.2016 passed by Civil Judge & Metropolitan
Magistrate (East), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit
No.133/2012, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 3 and
[2024:RJ-JP:13381] (2 of 4) [CR-76/2016]
11 (a) read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants has been
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent
No.1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') had filed a suit for
permanent injunction against the defendants. Defendants had filed
an application under Order 7 Rule 3 and 11 (a) read with Section
151 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 08.01.2016 wrongly
dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel
for the defendants also submits that the trial court had not
appreciated the averments of the plaint in right perspective. A
perusal of the plaint reveals that there was no privity of contract
between the defendants and plaintiff. Plaintiff Society had no right
to file a suit against the defendants. Learned counsel for the
defendants also submits that as per the Contract Act, a person
cannot transfer his contractual right to other person for
adjudication. So, revision petition filed by the defendants be
allowed and the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the trial court
be set aside.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Indu Kakkar Vs. Haryana State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. reported in
AIR 1999 SC 296; (2) M/s Hindustan Steel Works
Construction Ltd. Vs. M/s Bharat Spun Pipe Co. reported in
AIR 1975 Calcutta 8; (3) Khardah Company Ltd. Vs. Raymon
& Co. (India) Private Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1810; (4)
Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Vs. Kiran Construction Company
& Ors. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 46; (5) Society Vs.
Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC
[2024:RJ-JP:13381] (3 of 4) [CR-76/2016]
706; (6) Church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai &
Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 760; (7) Smt. Govindammal
Vs. Murugesan & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 Madras 235; (8)
Ambeshwar Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. VS. Babu Lal
& Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3101/2018 decided on
13.12.2011; (9) Smt. Vimla Kasliwal & Anr. VS. Shri
Rajendra Kumar Kasliwal & Ors. in S.B. Civil Revision
Petition No.79/2016 decided on 03.08.2018; (10) Temple of
Thakur Shri ..... Vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors. reported in RLW
2008 (2) Raj 1390 and (11) Illachi Devi (Dead) by LRs &
Ors. Vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India & Ors.
reported in (2003) 8 SCC 413.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that
the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the
defendants because at the time of deciding the application under
Order 7 Rule 3 and 11 (a) read with Section 151 CPC, trial court
had to see the averments of the plaint only and not the defence of
the defendants. Contentions raised by the defendants shall be
considered only after taking evidence of the parties. So, revision
petition be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff and perused the impugned order.
While dismissing the application filed by the defendants
under Order 7 Rule 3 and 11 (a) read with Section 151 CPC, trial
court rightly came to the conclusion that trial court had to see the
averments of the plaint only and not the defence of the
[2024:RJ-JP:13381] (4 of 4) [CR-76/2016]
defendants. Contentions raised by the defendants shall be
considered only after taking evidence of the parties. So, in my
considered opinion, order of the trial court does not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity. So, present revision petition being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
