Skip to content


Pema Ram and ors. Vs. Ladhu Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 216/1977
Judge
Reported in1978WLN(UC)259
AppellantPema Ram and ors.
RespondentLadhu Ram and ors.
Excerpt:
..... - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 3. learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents agree that the ripened order may be set-aside and the urban improvement trust maybe directed to submit its written statement and if the petitioner want to supplement their application they may do so......that the plaintiff shri ladu ram instituted a suit against the municipal council, jodhpur and the urban improvement trust, jodhpur under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 in respect of the land measuring 1, 987 sq yds. it was alleged that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the disputed land on 15 5-1975 by the municipal council, jodhpur & the urban improvement trust, jodhpur is going to allot the lard to order persons. the present petitioners presented an application with allegations that they have been allotted the lard on 2-2-1976 and the price has been paid by them, and commercial licences have been issued to them and they were put into possession of the land. on these facts it was stated that they are necessary parties in the suit so they ma> be in pleaded this application.....
Judgment:

M.C. Jain, J.

1. This revision is directed against the cider dated 19.9.1977 passed by the Additional District fudge No. 1, Jodhpur whereby the present petitioner's application dated 25-10-76 under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff Shri Ladu Ram instituted a suit against the Municipal Council, jodhpur and the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in respect of the land measuring 1, 987 sq yds. It was alleged that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the disputed land on 15 5-1975 by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur & the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur is going to allot the lard to order persons. The present petitioners presented an application with allegations that they have been allotted the lard on 2-2-1976 and the price has been paid by them, and commercial licences have been issued to them and they were put into possession of the land. On these facts it was stated that they are necessary parties in the suit so they ma> be in pleaded This application was resisted by the plaintiff After hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Judge, rejected the application, hence the Revision application.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents agree that the ripened order may be set-aside and the Urban Improvement Trust maybe directed to submit its written statement and if the petitioner want to supplement their application they may do so. After filing of the written statement by the Urban Improvement Trust and after production of any affidavits or any documentary evidence, the application presented by the petitioners may be directed to be disposed of In the circumstances of the case, I consider this submission quite proper for it may be stated that in absence of the written statement of the Urban Improvement Trust, its pleas have not come en the record. The Urban Improvement Trust so far has not filed the written stat me it nor an reply to the application has been submitted by the Urban improvement Trust its case has not come on record. The parties have also not submitted any document as such in my opinion, it would be proper that the impugned order may be seaside as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. Thus, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside and the ease is sent back to the Additional District Judge No. l jodhpur with the direction that he may dispose of the application after submission of the written statement by the Urban Improvement Trust and after production of documents by the parties if any and it would be open to tire present petitioners terabit any supplementary application and affidavit, if need be. It will al no be open to the parties serve interrogatories or to get the statements of the parties recorded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to clarify their respective stand's.

5. The costs of the revision shall be easy.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //