Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
SUSHILA BAI W/O RAMNARAYAN D/O LAKSHMI CHAND – Appellant
Versus
BRIJMOHAN – Respondent
CW / 3387 / 2022
Order :
1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi in Civil Misc. Appeal No.153/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 7 has been allowed and the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indergarh, District Bundi in Civil Case No.19/2007 has been set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs Laxmichand & Ors filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in which interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 31.03.2006 and 08.10.2007. Respondents had violated the said order. So, petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC . The trial court vide order dated 18.12.2012 allowed the application filed by the petitioners and directed one month's civil imprisonment to each of the respondent Nos.1 to 7. They had challenged the order by way of miscellaneous civil appeal. The appellate court vide order dated 02.11.2021 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the trial court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondents had violated the orders dated 31.03.2006 and 08.10.2007 passed by the trial court but appellate court had committed an error in setting aside the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the trial court. So, judgment dated 02.11.2021 passed by the appellate court be set aside.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned judgment.
5. Appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents clearly mentioned that original suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2013. So, interim order passed in their favour was merged in the final order. On account of dismissal of the original suit, interim order passed by the court below was nullified. So, in my considered opinion, appellate court had not committed any error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. So, present petition filed by the petitioners being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
The dismissal of the original suit nullifies any interim orders, and the appellate court's decision to set aside the trial court's civil imprisonment directive was correct.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate willful violation of an interim order, which was not established in this case.
Judicial discretion allows courts to direct lower courts to expedite pending matters while upholding existing orders.
Once a suit is dismissed, any interim order merges into the final order, rendering applications under Order 39 Rule 2-A non-maintainable.
The court permitted the conversion of a writ petition into a civil appeal, emphasizing the prioritization of substantive justice over technical dismissals when pursuing statutory remedies.
A plaintiff is entitled to amend their plaint when subsequent parties are added, and a trial court's refusal to accept such amendments is erroneous.
The trial Court has discretion in framing issues and did not err in dismissing the defendants' application as the proposed issues were already incorporated.
The trial court erred by not extending the interim injunction without assessing the merits of the case, necessitating correction under Article 227.
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
