MOHAN SINGH TADA SON OF LATE SHRI GIRDHARI SINGH Vs. S.M.S. INVESTMENT CORPORATION
LAWS(RAJ)-2019-10-16
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on October 01,2019

Mohan Singh Tada Son Of Late Shri Girdhari Singh Appellant
VERSUS
S.M.S. INVESTMENT CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) These appeals are directed against interlocutory order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1212/2019, which reads as under: "Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was a restrained order as against the respondent for raising any new construction over the suit property by this Court in SB Civil Second Stay Application No. 1976/2019 in SB Civil First Appeal No. 175/2018 on 28th May, 2019. In spite thereof, the construction has been continuing and was completed by the respondent-contemnor setting up a marriage garden fully constructed. Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application, returnable within two weeks. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur shall issue directions to seal the concerned property situated at Paanigran Marriage Garden, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur. A report to this effect shall be submitted before this Court on the next date. List this case on 16th October, 2019."
(2.) Appeal No. 22/2019 has been filed by Mohan Singh Tada. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Mohan Singh Tada in that appeal submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed by the learned Single Judge without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant or else he would have explained that he has not raised any new construction after passing of restraint order dated 28.05.2019. It is submitted that the Court prior to passing of aforementioned restraint order in the first appeal had appointed (3 of 4) [SAC-22/2019] an advocate as Commissioner, who submitted his report and the appellant has not raised any new construction of permanent nature than what has been described in the report of the Commissioner and he has only built certain temporary structure. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant had to file appeal because of non-availability of the learned Single Judge, to whom the matter has been assigned, till 14.10.2019. He submitted that the appellant has booked the disputed property for functions on 04.10.2019 and 09.10.2019 and therefore, the disputed property may not be sealed for the purpose of organisation of aforesaid functions.
(3.) Appeal No. 21/2019 has been filed by one Gaurav Singh contending that he had booked the disputed property which was being run as a marriage garden, for the purpose of his pre- wedding ceremony, which is scheduled to take place on 04.10.2019 and for that purpose, he would occupy the same on 03.10.2019. The time gap between today and 04.10.2019 is so short that it is not possible for him to arrange the ceremony at any other appropriate location.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.