Back
DAVE, LODHA
Ramsingh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
What is the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provisions to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution? What is the principle of Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC in relation to subsequent writ petitions? What is the maintainability of a second writ petition when a previous one on the same facts was dismissed in default and its restoration application was also dismissed?
Key Points: - The present writ application challenges the judgment of the Board of Revenue recognizing respondent No. 7 as an heir and ordering compensation payment (!) . - A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ application [17019690220001]. - The petitioner had previously filed a writ application on the same facts in 1961, which was dismissed in default on January 13, 1965 [17019690220002]. - An application for restoration of the first writ petition was dismissed on merits on April 20, 1966 (!) [17019690220002]. - The current writ application was filed on May 3, 1966, on the same facts [17019690220015]. - The principle of Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC can be suitably applied to writ proceedings [17019690220013]. - Rule 382 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, states that if an application is rejected, a second application on the same facts is not competent (!) [17019690220013]. - Writ proceedings invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for enforcement of civil rights are considered civil proceedings [17019690220011]. - Provisions of the CPC do not apply in terms to writ proceedings due to special rules, but analogous principles can be applied if they do not conflict with the rules [17019690220012]. - The present writ application is dismissed as not maintainable because the previous application on the same facts was dismissed in default and its restoration was also dismissed [17019690220013][17019690220014].
2. We do not think it necessary to set-out the facts stated in the writ application in detail, as, in our opinion, the writ application deserves to be disposed of on the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. The preliminary objection is that the present writ application is not maintainable. In order to appreciate the preliminary objection, it would be necessary to give a few facts leading to the filetion of this writ petition.
3. The impugned decision of the Board of Revenue was given on 24-12-60. A writ application challenging the correctness of the said decision of the Board of Revenue was filed in this Court by the petitioner on 23-5-61 and was registered as D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 273 of 1961. It was admitted on 30-5-61 and after service of notices
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
