SMT. RAJ DULARI Vs. RAM NIWAS S/O. SHRI HARI NARAIN AND RAGHUVEER CHATURVEDI AND J.D.A.
LAWS(RAJ)-2011-7-105
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on July 21,2011

Smt. Raj Dulari Appellant
VERSUS
Ram Niwas S/O. Shri Hari Narain And Raghuveer Chaturvedi And J.D.A. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This civil second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellant against judgment and decree dated 19.10.1983 passed by Additional District & Session Judge no.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Regular Appeal No.144/1983, whereby judgment and decree dated 10.08.1983 passed by Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City (West), Jaipur, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, has been set aside. The appeal was admitted by order of this court dated 14.03.1985 and as many as nine substantial questions of law were framed. This court by judgment dated 09.11.2005 allowed the appeal and while setting aside the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, restored that of the Munsiff. Feeling aggrieved thereby, plaintiff filed leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, which was granted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is limited, and that the High Court, in terms of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, must formulate substantial question of law arising in the matter and then proceed to determine the same. Since in the judgment that was earlier passed, this requirement, according to Supreme Court, was not satisfied, therefore, it was set aside and the matter was remanded to this court with the observation that it would be open to this court to formulate any other substantial question of law.
(2.) I have heard Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, for petitioner-appellant, Shri A.K. Pareek, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent and Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for defendant-respondent JDA.
(3.) Although at the time when the appeal was originally admitted as many as nine questions were formulated but, in my considered view, only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this case is as follows:- " Whether the plaintiff-respondent could claim relief of injunction in absence of possession particularly when he did not pray for recovery of possession - ;


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