SUNIL BAKSHI Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
LAWS(RAJ)-2014-11-253
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on November 20,2014

Sunil Bakshi Appellant
VERSUS
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Banwari Lal Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner preferred this writ petition before this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 724/2012 whereby the learned court below dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Section 151 read with Order 8, Rule 1 CPC.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/defendant No.4 filed an application before the learned court below under Section 151 CPC read with Order 8, Rule 1 CPC stating therein that the suit property is joint family property of plaintiff/defendant No.2 to 4 which was let out on rent to Hindustan Petroleum. The summons of notice of the suit was not served on defendant No.4 (petitioner). The defendant No. 3 is the elder brother of defendant No.4 (petitioner) who is residing with defendant No.2 in the ancestral house. After the death of father of petitioner, defendant No.2 is looking after the court cases regarding the ancestral property, therefore, few blank 'vakalatnamas' were given by defendant No.4 (petitioner) to defendant No.3. Thereafter the terms between defendant No.3 and 4 became stern and defendant No.3, without obtaining signature of defendant No.4 (petitioner), filed written statement in the court below.
(3.) It is further stated in the application that petitioner is not residing with defendant No. 2 and 3 therefore he is not aware about the proceedings of the suit. Neither he filed written statement nor signed the same. The written statement filed by defendant Nos. 2 & 3 was not filed properly, therefore, it is necessary to put correct facts before the court which will not prejudice the rights of the parties. Rather, in absence of written statement of defendant No.4 (petitioner), his rights would be adversely effected. Therefore, he may be permitted to file written statement. The plaintiff and rest of the defendants did not opt to file reply to the application but they opposed the same and prayed for its dismissal.;


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