Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prasnna Chand Singhvi vs Chuka Kanwar on 25 August, 2020
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6563/2020
Prasnna Chand Singhvi S/o Shri Komal Chand Singhvi, Aged
About 64 Years, R/o Village Ladnoo Road, Of Gupta, Hospital
Deedwana, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Chuka Kanwar W/o Shri Dayal Singh, Aged About 40 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Saniyan, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order 25/08/2020 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deedwana (hereinafter to be referred as the 'trial court'), whereby the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 4 CPC has been dismissed.
The petitioner has filed a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 25.11.2010 and for permanent injunction before the trial court against one Chuka Kanwar in the year 2011. On 02.11.2013, the petitioner appeared before the trial court along with his advocate and moved an application for withdrawing the suit filed by him while contending that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties. On the application of the (Downloaded on 25/08/2020 at 08:53:54 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-6563/2020] petitioner, the trial court vide order dated 02.01.2013 has allowed the applicaton seeking withdrawal of the suit filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 2019, the petitioner has filed an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC with a prayer for restoring the suit dismissed by the trial court on 02.01.2013. The trial court has rejected the said application while observing that the application of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 4 CPC is not maintainable.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order because the suit filed by the petitioner in year 2011 before the trial court was not dismissed under order IX Rule 2 and 3 CPC and the same was dismissed as withdrawn in the presence of the petitioner.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 96-Taruna/-
(Downloaded on 25/08/2020 at 08:53:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)