Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Trust Mandir Shri Ladli Ji vs Lavesh Goswami Son Of Late Shri ... on 14 October, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19094/2018
1. Trust Mandir Shri Ladli Ji, Ladli Ji Ka Khurra, Ramganj
Bazaar, Jaipur Through Trustee Sanjay Goswami Son Of
Late Shri Brijkishore Ji Goswami, By Caste Brahmin,
Resident Of 2453-2454, Ladli Ji Ka Khurra, Ramganj
Bazaar, Jaipur
2. Sanjay Goswami Son Of Late Shri Brijkishore Goswami,
Grandson Of Late Shri Jugal Kishore Ji, By Caste Brahmin,
Resident Of 2453-2454, Ladli Ji Ka Khurra, Ramganj
Bazaar,ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Lavesh Goswami Son Of Late Shri Ramkishore Ji
Goswami, Grandson Of Late Shri Jugal Kishore Ji, By
Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 2453-2454, Ladli Ji Ka
Khurra, Ramganj Bazaar,ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur.
2. Ajay Goswami Son Of Late Shri Rajkishore Ji Goswami,
Grandson Of Late Shri Jugal Kishore Ji, By Caste Brahmin,
Resident Of 2453-2454, Ladli Ji Ka Khurra, Ramganj
Bazaar,ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur.
3. Ramkishore Goswami Son Of Late Shri Jugal Kishore Ji
Goswami, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 2453-2454,
Ladli Ji Ka Khurra, Ramganj Bazaar,ramganj Bazaar,
Jaipur. (Died During Pendency Of Suit)
4. Raj Kishore Goswami Son Of Late Shri Jugal Kishore Ji
Goswami, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 2453-2454,
Ladli Ji Ka Khurra, Ramganj Bazaar,ramganj Bazaar,
Jaipur. (Died During Pendency Of Suit)
5. Pravesh Sharma Son Of Late Shri Raj Kishore Goswami,
By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 2453-2454, Ladli Ji Ka
Khurra, Ramganj Bazaar,ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur
6. Kamal Kishore Sharma Son Of Late Shri Raj Kishore
Goswami, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 2453-2454,
Ladli Ji Ka Khurra, Ramganj Bazaar,ramganj Bazaar,
Jaipur.
7. Smt. Asha Rani Wife Of Late Shri Rajkishore Goswami, By
Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 2453-2454, Ladli Ji Ka
(Downloaded on 21/10/2019 at 09:16:19 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-19094/2018]
Khurra, Ramganj Bazaar,ramganj Bazaar, Jaipur.
8. State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary, Address
Secretariat, Bhawani Singh Highway, Jaipur
9. Additional Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jaipur,
Address Maharaja Sanskrit College Campus, Office
Additional Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Hawa
Mahal Bazaar, Chowkdi Ramchandra Ji, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Parashar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 14/10/2019 This writ petition has been placed before this Court in view of the observations of Coordinate Bench of this Court that the matter requires interpretation of an earlier order passed by this Court dated 09.01.2018 and its interpretation taken by the learned trial Court in its impugned order dated 12.07.2018.
The then learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, has refused to take on record the written statement of the petitioners on the ground that this Court while setting aside the ex-parte proceedings undertaken against the petitioners vide order dated 21.10.2014 and also setting aside the order dated 23.07.2016 whereby application for setting aside moved before the concerned Court was rejected, was set aside observing that the trial Court may now proceed with the suit by framing issues.
Treating the aforesaid to mean that the trial Court was required to only frame issues and proceed further and not allow (Downloaded on 21/10/2019 at 09:16:19 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-19094/2018] the petitioners to file written statement, the impugned order dated 12.07.2018 was passed. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that once, the ex-parte proceeding order was set aside, it would mean that the petitioner would be allowed to file their written statement as the date of 21.10.2014 was fixed for filing of the written statement. However, as the counsel pleaded no instruction, written statement could not be filed and the proceedings were undertaken ex-parte against the petitioners.
Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plaintiffs vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits that a specific prayer ought to have been made by the petitioners for allowing their written statement to be taken on record as the petitioners have not made any such prayer, it would amount to constructive res-judicata and bind them from not filing their written statement now. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Atcom Technologies Limited Versus Y.A. Chunawala And Compnay & Ors. reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639 to submit that the petitioners were required to give a valid reason for not filing their written statement. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Versus Dilip Joshi & Anr.: SBCWP No.4500/2019, decided on 10.04.2019, wherein similar law was reiterated i.e. cogent reason has not been come forward on behalf of the concerned defendant as to why written statement was not filed within time.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
(Downloaded on 21/10/2019 at 09:16:19 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-19094/2018] This Court finds that the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, has misguided himself. At no point of time, the Court has closed the written statement of the petitioners. The opportunity to file reply was never closed nor any such order is on record. It appears that on 21.10.2014, the date fixed for filing of the written statement, the counsel appearing for the petitioners pleaded no instruction and simply on the said basis, ex-parte proceedings were undertaken against the petitioners. The said order dated 21.10.2014 was set aside by this Court. It would thus mean that the proceedings were to start afresh from the date as prior to 21.10.2014. No other interpretation could have been taken. Observations of this Court to proceed further with the suit were in reference to the other aspects, which have been observed by the Court wherein this Court has observed that unnecessarily delay are being caused by the trial Courts on the technical issues resulting delay in disposal of the cases. It was also noticed that the Court below has taken time for rejecting the application moved by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. However, it is most unfortunate that instead of interpreting the Court's judgment with a view to dispose of the matter, another complication has been initiated by taking an absurd the interpretation while passing the order dated 09.01.2018 resulting further delay in conclusion of the proceedings.
Submission of learned counsel for the respondents that no cogent reason have been come forward for not filing of the written statement is not an issue before this Court at all as there is no order of the Court for closing the reply on the ground of delay in filing the same. The question of res-judicata or constructive res- (Downloaded on 21/10/2019 at 09:16:19 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-19094/2018] judicata would also therefore not arise. The judgments as cited by the counsel for the respondents would have no application to the facts of the present case.
In view of the observations, as above, this writ petition is allowed. The trial Court is now directed to take the written statement of the petitioners on record and then proceed further accordingly and to make attempt for disposal of the matter finally instead of hearing on hyper-technical issues.
No costs.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J SUNIL SOLANKI /19/24 (Downloaded on 21/10/2019 at 09:16:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)