Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Arshad Sayeed Khan Son Of Shri Ahmed ... vs Kesar Sayeed Khan Son Of Shri Ahmed Syeed ... on 9 March, 2021

Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 827/2021

1.       Arshad Sayeed Khan Son Of Shri Ahmed Syeed Khan,
         (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives:
1/1.     Mst. Farida Kouser, Wife Of Late Shri Arashad Syeed Khan
1/2.     Saif Syeed Khan, Son Of Late Shri Arashad Syeed Khan
1/3.     Salman Syeed Khan, Son Of Late Shri Arashad Syeed
         Khan
1/4.     Imran Syeed Khan Son Of Late Shri Arashad Syed Khan,
         All Resident Of Mohalla Gumat, Badi, Tehsil Badi, District
         Dholpur (Rajasthan).
                                  ----LR's of Defendant No.1-Applicants
                                    Versus
1.       Kesar Sayeed Khan Son Of Shri Ahmed Syeed Khan,
         Resident   Of      Badi,      Tehsil       Badi,        District     Dholpur
         (Rajasthan).
                                                                            ---Plaintiff
2.       Tehsildar, Badi, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)
                                                                 ----Co-Defendant


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Alok Chaturvedi
For Respondent(s)         :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 09/03/2021 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity 'the Board') whereby, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners- defendants against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur, treating the interim order (Downloaded on 13/03/2021 at 08:45:10 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-827/2021] dated 05.02.1988 to be automatically revived on restoration of the suit dismissed in default, has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after restoration of the suit on an application filed by the respondents- plaintiffs under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, express order was required to be passed to restore the order passed in temporary injunction application; otherwise, the same has no automatic revival. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned treating automatic revival of the interim order be quashed and set aside.

The controversy is no more res-integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese and others.: AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3992, held that interlocutory orders which have been passed before the dismissal of the suit in default, would stand revived alongwith the suit when the dismissal is set aside and the suit is restored unless the Court expressly or by implications excludes the operation of the interlocutory orders passed during the period between dismissal of the suit and the restoration.

As admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no specific order was passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the temporary injunction application while dismissing the suit in default, no express order was required for revival of the interim order.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J MADAN/35 (Downloaded on 13/03/2021 at 08:45:10 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)