SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHP
SHIV SHANKAR – Appellant
Versus
SMT. TULSI DEVI – Respondent
CW 5069/2022



Advocates:
['GOVIND LAL', '', 'MOHIT CHOUDHARY', 'ANIKET TATER', 'PRATEEK SURANA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5069/2022

1.

Shiv Shankar S/o Late Shri Jai Ganesh S/o Late Shri

Jagannath, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o

Near Hariramji Temple, Vaidya Magharam Colony, Bikaner.

2.

Deen Dayal S/o Late Shri Jai Ganesh S/o Late Shri

Jagannath, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o

Near Hariramji Temple, Vaidya Magharam Colony, Bikaner.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Smt. Tulsi Devi W/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Ji Pareek D/o Late

Shri Jagannath, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Behind

Satyanarayan Temple, Pareek Chowk, Bikaner.

2.

Smt. Sharda W/o Shri Nityanand Ji Pareek D/o Late Shri

Jagannath, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Sonagiri Kuan, Pareek

Chowk, Bikaner.

3.

Smt. Madhu W/o Late Shri Ram Niwas Ji Bohra D/o Late

Shri Jagannath, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Pareek Chowk,

Bikaner.

4.

Jaishree D/o Late Shri Jai Ganesh S/o Late Shri

Jagannath, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Near Hariramji Temple,

Vaidhya Magharam Colony, Bikaner.

5.

Rajshree W/o Shri Ashok Joshi D/o Late Shri Ganesh, By

Caste Brahmin, R/o Near Hariram Temple, Vaidhya

Magharam Colony, Bikaner.

6.

Rajni W/o Dev Kumar Joshi D/o Late Shri Jay Ganesh, By

Caste Brahmin, R/o Near Pandity Dharam Kante, Vaidya

Magharam Colony, Bikaner.

7.

Mohni Devi W/o Late Shri Jaiganesh, By Caste Brahmin,

R/o Near Hariramji Temple, Vaidhya Magharam Colony,

Bikaner.

8.

Smt. Kavita W/o Late Shri Jitendra Pareek (Pandiya) S/o

Late Shri Om Prakash, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Near

Shanishchar Temple, Near, B.k. School, Daga Mohalla,

Bikaner.

9.

Riddhi D/o Late Shri Jitendra Pareek (Pandiya), By Caste

Brahmin, R/o Near Shanishchar Temple, Near, B.k.

School, Daga Mohalla, Bikaner.

(2 of 3)

[CW-5069/2022]

10.

Chetna D/o Late Shri Jitendra Pareek (Pandiya), By Caste

Brahmin, R/o Near Shanishchar Temple, Near, B.k.

School, Daga Mohalla, Bikaner.

11.

Devenrdra @ Deven S/o Late Shri Om Prakash, By Caste

Brahmin, R/o Near Shanishchar Temple, Near, B.k. Shool,

Daga Mohalla, Bikaner.

12.

Annu D/o Late Shri Om Pakash, By Caste Brahmin, R/o

Near Shanishchar Temple, Near, B.k. School, Daga

Mohalla, Bikaner.

13.

Sheela Devi W/o Late Shri Om Prakash, By Caste

Brahmin, R/o Near Shanishchar Temple, Near, B.k.

School, Daga Mohalla, Bikaner.

14.

Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Durga Das Purohit D/o Late

Shri Jagannath, By Caste Brahmin, R/o At Present C/o

Rejendra Purohit, 3 B 602, Patliputra, Near Goregaon, Bus

Dipot, Usivara, Andheri West, Mumbai 53

15.

Asha W/o Shri Ravi Shankar Pareek D/o Late Shri

Jagannath, By Caste Brahmin, R/o In Front Of Ashoka

Furniture, Pareek Quarters, Purani Ginnani, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

18/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the

Additional District Judge No.6, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to be

as ‘the trial court’), whereby the application filed on behalf of the

respondent-plaintiffs under Order 22 Rule 4 (4) C.P.C. has been

allowed and they have been exempted from bringing the legal

representatives of defendant No.7 on record.

(3 of 3)

[CW-5069/2022]

The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the

defendant No.7 has not filed any written statement and the suit

was proceeded ex parte and during life time, he has not filed any

application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, therefore, in

such circumstances, as per the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4(4)

C.P.C., the legal representatives of the defendant No.7 are not

required to be taken on record.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the

provisions of Order 22 Rule 4(4) C.P.C., I do not find any illegality

in the impugned order.

Hence, the writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top