Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA, J
SANJU DEVI – Appellant
Versus
SUMERMAL – Respondent
CFA / 262 / 2025
ORDER :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in an identical appeal being S.B. Civil First Appeal No.263/2025, an interim order has already been passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in presence of learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. He submits that a similar order may be passed in the present appeal too.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Devendra Khatri who has put in appearance in caveat for respondent No.1 does not refute the above submission.
4. In S.B. Civil First Appeal No.263/2025, order dated 27.02.2025 was passed as under:-
“Let the appeal be admitted for hearing.
Plaintiff-respondent No.1 has already appeared as caveator.
Let notice should go to the remaining respondents through both the processes.
Requisites be filed within two weeks.
On compliance of the same, the Registry shall proceed.
Call for lower court record.
By the impugned judgment, trial court had ordered for cancellation of sale deed made in favour of the appellant.
That portion of order shall remain stayed till further order.
List the matter on 07.04.2025.”
5. In view of the submission made, Admit. Issue notice.
Notices need not be issued to respondent No.1 as he is already represented by counsel Mr. Devendra Khatri.
6. Issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 11.
Issue notice of the stay application also.
Notices be filed in two sets within a period of one week. On the same being filed, one set be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the appellant for service through registered post acknowledgment due.
Postal receipts of the 'dasti' notices be filed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of 'dasti' notices.
7. Meanwhile, the portion of the order whereby the cancellation of sale deed was directed in favour of the appellant shall remain stayed till further orders.
8. List the matter on 07.04.2025 alongwith S.B. Civil First Appeal No.263/2025.
The court upheld the necessity of maintaining the status quo by staying the trial court's order for cancellation of a sale deed pending the appeal.
A suit for refund of consideration is not maintainable without a specific performance prayer, as per procedural requirements.
The court ruled that maintaining the status quo regarding property is essential to ensure legal consistency until similar legal matters are resolved.
The court emphasized the necessity of actual service of notice and the consideration of delay circumstances in applications under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC.
The trial court must provide reasoning when deciding applications for temporary injunctions and cannot merely issue notices without addressing the merits of the request.
Proper service of summons is essential for the validity of court proceedings, and failure to adhere to the prescribed legal procedures can result in the setting aside of ex-parte decrees.
The court mandates the timely disposal of I.A No.2/2025 to ensure the effective exercise of appellate rights.
Due process requires authorities to evaluate submitted replies and hold hearings before finalizing decisions affecting rights.
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
