Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Ramratan (Deceased) vs Rameshwar Lal Alias Kamal Kishore on 12 September, 2018
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 145/2018
Ramratan (Deceased) s/o Sukhlal, by caste Soni, through its
Legal representatives.
----Appellants
Versus
Rameshwar Lal Alias Kamal Kishore S/o Amritlal Alias Imratlal,
Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Soni, Resident Of Sunahro Ki
Ghati, Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Headu.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 12/09/2018 Parties were heard on admission at length. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out two relevant issues being issue no.2 and issue no.4, which read as under:
"02. vk;k oknh bdjkjukek lafonk fnukafdr 27-9-1992 dh 'krksZa dh ikyuk djus dks rS;kj o rRij jgk gS\ 04- vk;k nkok fe;kn ckgj gS\"
Attention was then drawn to the findings of the trial court on both the issues, which insofar as relevant, read as under:
Issue No.2:
"17........oknh jkejru dk dsoy ek= ;g dFku fd og bdjkjukek izn'kZ&01 fu"ikfnr gksus ds i'pkr~ gj le; ,sls bdjkjukek dh 'krksZa dh ikyuk gsrq rS;kj o rRij jgk rFkk ckj ckj izfroknhx.k dks bdjkjukek dh 'ks"k cdk;k izfrQy dh jkf'k izkIr dj oknh ds i{k esa fookfnr edku dk cSpkuukek fu"ikfnr djus dk dgrk jgkA fdUrq bl ckcr~ uk rks oknh us fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fnukad rFkk o"kZ dk mYys[k fd;k gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gks fd oknh jkejru }kjk viuh vksj ls ckj ckj izfroknhx.k ls bdjkjukek izn'kZ&01 dh ikyuk esa cSpkuukek fu"ikfnr djkus dks dgk x;k gksA vr% bl lanHkZ esa oknh }kjk fd;k okLrfod iz;kl tkfgj ugha (2 of 4) [CSA-145/2018] gksrk gSA lkFk gh bdjkjukek izn'kZ&01 o"kZ 1992 esa fu"ikfnr gksus ds i'pkr~ oknh }kjk loZizFke izfroknhx.k dks ,sls bdjkjukek dh ikyuk esa cSpkuukek fu"ikfnr djkus ckcr~ uksfVl fnukad 15-02-2005 dks izn'kZ&02 ds :i esa izsf"kr fd;k x;k vFkkZr yxHkx 13 o"kZ rd oknh jkejru }kjk bdjkjukek izn'kZ&01 dh ikyuk esa cSpkuukek fu"ikfnr djkus gsrq dksbZ izHkkoh dk;Zokgh dh x;h gks bldk dksbZ Li"V mYys[k oknh dh vksj ls ugha fd;k x;k gSA bu 13 o"kksZa ds nkSjku dHkh Hkh fdlh xokg ds le{k oknh us izfroknhx.k ls lEidZ dj ,sls cSpkuukek fu"ikfnr djkus dks dgk gks] ;g Hkh i=koyh ij tkfgj ugha vkrk gSA 18- lkFk gh izn'kZ&02 uksfVl ds vykok vU; dksbZ uksfVl dHkh Hkh oknh }kjk izfroknhx.k dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k gks vFkok oknh dHkh Hkh 'ks"k cdk;k izfrQy dh jkf'k izfroknhx.k ds le{k ysdj mifLFkr gqvk gks ,slk Hkh dksbZ mYys[k oknh jkejru }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlds vHkko esa oknh jkejru bl rF; dks izekf.kr dj ikus esa foQy jgk gS fd og lnSo bdjkjukek izn'kZ&1 dh ikyuk djokus gsrq rS;kj o rRij FkkA "
Issue No.4:"
"22- mDr fook|d ckcr nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; o nLrkost dk foospu fd;k x;kA izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr lafonk dh ikyuk ckcr okn fe;kn vof/k ds ckgj is'k gS fdUrq bl laca/k esa bdjkjukek izn'kZ&01 dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA bdjkjukek izn'kZ&01 esa ,sls bdjkjukek dh ikyuk dh dksbZ fuf'pr le;kof/k dk mYys[k ugha Fkk ftlds vHkko esa izfroknhx.k dk ;g rdZ Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gS fd bdjkjukek fu"ikfnr gksus dh ikyuk oknh dks 03 o"kZ ds Hkhrj gh djuh Fkh D;ksafd bl laca/k esa vkfVZdy&54 ifjlhek vf/kfu;e esa ;g Li"V :i ls mYysf[kr gS fd ;fn fdlh bdjkjukes dh ikyuk dh dksbZ fuf'pr frfFk bdjkjukek esa mYysf[kr Hkh gS rks Hkh bdjkjukek ckcr fe;kn vof/k ml fnukad ls izkjEHk gksxh tcfd oknh dh tkudkjh esa izFke ckj ;g rF; vk;k fd izfroknhx.k ,sls bdjkjukek dh ikyuk djkus dks rS;kj ugha gSA okni= ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd okni= esa mYysf[kr vuqlkj oknh jkejru ds eqrkfcd tc og ckj ckj izfroknhx.k dks bdjkjukek dh ikyuk gsrq dgrk jgk rFkk tc ;g mls yxus yxk fd izfroknhx.k ,sls bdjkjukek dh ikyuk gsrq rS;kj ugha gS] rks mlus o"kZ 2005 esa izn'kZ&02 ds :i esa izfroknhx.k dks uksfVl fn;k tks fd izfroknhx.k dks izkIr gks x;k Fkk rFkk ,sls uksfVl esa mYysf[kr 10 fnu dh vof/k fcrus ds ckn oknh us fu/kkZfjr fe;kn vof/k esa ;g okn izfroknhx.k ds fo:) oknh }kjk is'k dj fd;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh dk okn fe;kn ckgj gks x;k] izfroknhx.k dk ,slk rF; Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA "
Submissions were made that in the teeth of finding recorded on issue no.4 pertaining to limitation, the finding on issue no.2 cannot be sustained and in any case, both the findings being mutually destructive cannot stand together.
Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that even if the suit has been held to be within limitation while deciding issue no.4, on account of findings on issue no.2 pertaining to lack (3 of 4) [CSA-145/2018] of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the decree passed by the trial court, as upheld by the first appellate court, does not call for any interference.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal:
(1) Whether the findings on issue no.2 pertaining to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract can be sustained in view of the finding recorded by the trial court on issue no.4 pertaining to limitation, wherein, the suit has been held within limitation based on the finding of the court regarding repeated requests having been made by the plaintiff for performance of the contract? (2) Whether the finding on issue no.2 can be sustained in the teeth of finding on issue no.4, which finding, for lack of any challenge by the defendant by way of cross objection, has attained finality? (3) Whether the findings of the two courts below on issue no.2 can be sustained based on the material available on record?
Admit. Issue notice.
As Mr. Rameshwar Headu appears for the sole respondent, no need to issue fresh notice.
It is pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in a suit for eviction filed by the respondent against the appellant, a decree has been passed by the trial court, which has been upheld by the first appellate court, however, in the second appeal filed by the appellant, the decree for eviction passed by the trial court, as upheld by the first appellate court, has been stayed.
(4 of 4) [CSA-145/2018] In view of the above fact situation, no interim order is required to be passed in the present appeal.
In view thereof, the stay application stands disposed of leaving it open for the appellants to file fresh application, in case any occasion arises.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J baweja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)