[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Hemraj S/O Dhannalal Ji vs Morpal S/O Bhairulal Ji on 16 April, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:16153]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 251/2022
1. Hemraj S/o Dhannalal Ji, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Village Pipalda Biram, Tehsil Deegod, District Kota.
2. Sukhpal S/o Hemraj Ji, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village
Pipalda Biram, Tehsil Deegod, District Kota.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Morpal S/o Bhairulal Ji, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village
Pipalda Biram, Tehsil Deegod, District Kota.
2. Jugal Kishore S/o Bhairulal Ji, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Village Pipalda Biram, Tehsil Deegod, District Kota.
3. Jagannath S/o Bhairulal Ji, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Village Pipalda Biram, Tehsil Deegod, District Kota.
4. Sukhdev S/o Bhairulal Ji, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Village Pipalda Biram, Tehsil Deegod, District Kota.
5. Ramkaran S/o Bhairulal Ji, Since Deceased Through Legal
Representative-
5/1. Jugraj S/o Ramkaran, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village
Pipalda Biram, Tehsil Deegod, District Kota.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahavir Prasad Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Trivedi, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 16/04/2025
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners-
defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated
30.07.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Deegod, District Kota in Civil
Suit No.25/2022, whereby the application filed by the defendants
(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:52:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16153] (2 of 3) [CR-251/2022]
under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that
respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit against
the defendants for mandatory and permanent injunction in which
defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with
Section 151 CPC that in plaint plaintiffs had not mentioned any
specific date as to when cause of action accrued and also not
mentioned as to whether land in question was agriculture land or
residential land. As per contention of the plaintiffs, defendants had
put stones to obstruct the way. So, for opening of the way only
revenue court had jurisdiction to try but trial court vide order
dated 30.7.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the
defendants. So, order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the trial court
be set aside.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that
plaintiffs in their plaint clearly mentioned that cause of action was
accrued on 10.05.2022 when defendants threatened to obstruct
the way. The present suit is related to easement rights. So, trial
court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants
because objections raised by the defendants would be decided
after framing the issues and leading evidence by the parties. So,
present petition filed by the defendants be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiffs.
(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:52:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16153] (3 of 3) [CR-251/2022]
While dismissing the application filed by the defendants, trial
court clearly mentioned that objections raised by the defendants
would be decided only after leading evidence by the parties
because these objections were mixed questions of law and fact.
So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any
error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. So,
present petition filed by the defendants 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 /101
(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:52:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link