Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harish Kumar S/O Shri Thakurdas Sindhi vs Alkesh Munot S/O Late Shri Vinay Chand ... on 10 January, 2023
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16846/2022
1. Harish Kumar S/o Shri Thakurdas Sindhi, R/o Nand Nagar,
Gali No. 1, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Laxman Das S/o Shri Teumal Sindhi, R/o Shastri Nagar,
Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Kishor Kumar S/o Shri Arjun Das Sindhi, R/o Sankhla
Colony, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Defendants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Alkesh Munot S/o Late Shri Vinay Chand Munot, R/o Munot
Market, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj
...Plaintiff/Non-petitioner
2. Ajeet S/o Late Shri Girdhari, R/o Village Thikrana Gujran,
Tehsil Beawar (Raj.).
3. Kalu S/o Late Shri Girdhari, R/o Village Thikrana Gujran,
Tehsil Beawar (Raj.).
4. Smt. Dhapu W/o Late Shri Girdhari, R/o Village Thikrana
Gujran, Tehsil Beawar (Raj.).
5. Makna @ Magna S/o Late Shri Dhanna, R/o Village Thikrana
Gujran, Tehsil Beawar (Raj.).
6. Ramjan S/o Shri Makna @ Magna, R/o Village Thikrana
Gujran, Tehsil Beawar (Raj.).
7. Kana S/o Late Shri Dhanna, Through Legal Heirs
Representatives, (Deceased)
7/1. Smt. Chhoti W/o Late Shri Kana, R/o Village Thikrana
Gujran, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
7/2. Gheesa S/o Late Shri Kana, R/o Village Thikrana Gujran,
Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
7/3. Kacharu S/o Late Shri Kana, R/o Village Thikrana Gujran,
Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
7/4. Geeta D/o Late Shri Kana, R/o Village Thikrana Gujran,
Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
7/5. Kanchan D/o Late Shri Kana, R/o Village Thikrana Gujran,
Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
7/6. Ms. Shahnaj Minor D/o Late Shri Kana, Through Her Mother
And Natural Guardian Smt. Chhoti, R/o Village Thikrana
(Downloaded on 14/01/2023 at 12:31:04 AM)
(2 of 3) [CW-16846/2022]
Gujran, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Ajmer (Raj.).
9. Tehsildar, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.).
10. Sub-Registrar, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.).
11. Sub-Registrar, Masuda, District Ajmer (Raj.).
----Defendants/Performa/Non-Petitioners
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 10/01/2023 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29.03.2022 whereby the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 under Section 151 C.P.C. was allowed.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner-defendant before the learned trial Court through their counsel Sh. Gopal Kishan Bansal,Adv., Sh. Atul Bansal, Adv. and Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma, Adv., however the signatures of Sh. Atul Bansal, Adv. were not there on the vakalatnama filed alongwith the suit. During pendency of the said suit, Sh. Atul Bansal, Adv. filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for taking on record the fresh Vakalatnama of Sh. Atul Bansal, Advocate which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 29.03.2022, hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29.03.2022.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has committed serious illegality in taking on record the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of Sh. Atul Bansal, Advocate. Counsel further submits that the proceedings which have been continued before the trial Court on (Downloaded on 14/01/2023 at 12:31:04 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-16846/2022] behalf of the plaintiff deserves to be set aside as the Vakalatnama of Sh. Atul Bansal, Adv. was not there on record and he has not been authroised by the plaintiff to appear on his behalf and prayed for quahsing of the order dated 29.03.2022.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. I have perused the original Vakalatnama signed on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff wherein the names of Sh. Gopal Kishan Bansal, Adv., Sh. Atul Bansal, Adv. and Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma, Adv. were mentioned in the Vakalatnama, however, the same was not signed by Sh. Atul Bansal, Advocate. A bare perusal of the Vakalatnama (Annexure-2) clearly shows that the plaintiff has authorized his counsel to engage another counsel in case needs so arises, therefore, in my considered view, the proceedings which have been attended by Sh. Atul Bansal, Adv. cannot be set aside only on this ground that he was not authorised by the plaintiff as the name of Sh. Atul Bansal, Adv. was also as mentioned in the original Vakalatnama, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /63 (Downloaded on 14/01/2023 at 12:31:04 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)