Skip to content


Shri Gauri Industries Vs. Prathvi Raj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 73 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1986WLN(UC)108
AppellantShri Gauri Industries
RespondentPrathvi Raj
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - sections 115 and 151 and order 39, rules 1 and 2--temporary injunction--defendants restrained from installation of oil expeller of 20 h.p. in suit premises--order confirmed by district court--lower courts committed no error of jurisdiction and discretion was exercised properly--held, no interference is called for in revision;revision dismissed - .....that the expeller was fixed on gardar which was placed on two walls of the non-petitioners. he also submitted that in the same premises previously the plaintiff himself was using 'ara machine' of 30 h.p. he has further submitted that this aspect of matter was not considered at all by both the learned courts in passing impugned orders. controverting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for non-petitioner plaintiff submitted that the orders passed by the learned lower courts are discretionary one and as such no interference should be made under section 115, of the code of civil procedure.4. i have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel. i am of the view that both the learned lower courts.....
Judgment:

Panna Chand Jain, J.

1. This revision petition has been listed for orders, today. Counsel for the parties have argued the case on merits of the revision petition, as such the revision petition itself is being disposed of by this order.

2. The learned Munsif Magistrate Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 20-11-1984 passed an order restraining the defendants to install oil expeller of 20 H.P. in the suit premises. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate the defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who vide order dated 30th November, 1984 confirmed the order passed by the learned Munsif. It is against this order, revision petition has been preferred.

3. Learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that both the learned lower courts have committed material irregularities in passing the orders under challenge. He submitted that the main grievance of the petitioner was that the expeller was fixed on gardar which was placed on two walls of the non-petitioners. He also submitted that in the same premises previously the plaintiff himself was using 'Ara Machine' of 30 H.P. He has further submitted that this aspect of matter was not considered at all by both the learned Courts in passing impugned orders. Controverting the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for non-petitioner plaintiff submitted that the orders passed by the learned lower courts are discretionary one and as such no interference should be made Under Section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel. I am of the view that both the learned lower courts committed no error of jurisdiction and exercised the discretion vested in them in proper manner. However, matter is before the trial court and it will give due consideration to submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner defendants while passing final order.

5. With these observations, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.


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