1985 Supreme(Raj) 726
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.C.Jain, J.
Shri Gauri Industries - Appellant
Versus
Prathvi Raj - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision No. 73 of 1985.
Decided On : 8-10-1985
The court upheld the discretionary orders of the lower courts, finding no error of jurisdiction and proper exercise of discretion.
Headnote:
discretionary - installation of oil expeller - The court upheld the discretionary orders of the lower courts, finding no error of jurisdiction and proper exercise of discretion. The matter was referred back to the trial court for due consideration of the defendant's submissions.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant appealed the order restraining them from installing an oil expeller in the suit premises, arguing that the lower courts had committed material irregularities in passing the orders under challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts had not erred in jurisdiction and had exercised discretion properly. The matter was referred back to the trial court for further consideration.
Issues: Discretionary orders, material irregularities, installation of oil expeller
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no error of jurisdiction and upheld the discretionary orders of the lower courts, referring the matter back to the trial court for further consideration.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT
1. - This revision petition has been listed for orders, today. Counsel for the parties have argued the case on merits of the revision petition, as such the revision petition itself is being disposed of by this order.
2. The learned Munsif Magistrate Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 20-11-1984 passed an order restraining the defendants to install oil expeller of 20 H.P. in the suit premises. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate the defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who vide order dated 30th November, 1984 confirmed the order passed by the learned Munsif. It is against this order, revision petition has been preferred.
3. Learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that both the learned lower courts have committed material irregularities in passing the orders under challenge. He submitted that the main grievance of the petitioner was that the expeller was fixed on gardar which was placed on two walls of the non-petitioners. He also submitted that in the same premises previously the plaintiff himself was using 'Ara Machine' of 30 H.P. He has further submitted that this aspect of matter was not considered at all by both the learned Courts in passing impugned orders. Controverting the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for non-petitioner plaintiff submitted that the orders passed by the learned lower courts are discretionary one and as such no interference should be made Under Section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel. I am of the view that both the learned lower courts committed no error of jurisdiction and exercised the discretion vested in them in proper manner. However, matter is before the trial court and it will give due consideration to submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner defendants while passing final order.
5. With these observations, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Revision dismissed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
