HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5330/2022

Smt. Babita W/o Shri Vijay Arya, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 1 D

4, Sector No. 13, Hiran Magri, Opposite Aravali Gas, Udaipur

(Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,

Udaipur Depot, Central Bus Stand, Udaiyapole, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Jogu Singh Bhati

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

18/04/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved

with the order dated 05.03.2022 passed by the Additional District

Judge No.4, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the appellate

court’), whereby it has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner

against the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the Civil Judge

(South) Udaipur City, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the

trial court’) whereas it has allowed the appeal preferred on behalf

of respondent-RSRTC against the very same order.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit

for permanent injunction and possession against the respondent-

RSRTC claiming that she participated in the auction proceedings

for allotment of a Leather Items Stall at Bus Stand, Udaipur. Her

bid was accepted by the respondent-RSRTC, however, the

(2 of 4)

[CW-5330/2022]

possession was not given to her. Along with the aforesaid suit, the

application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section

151 CPC was filed and the trial court, after hearing counsel for the

parties, partly allowed the said application filed on behalf of the

petitioner and the respondent-RSRTC was restrained to allot the

Leather Items Stall to anybody. The trial court while deciding the

application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section

151 CPC came to the conclusion that as the petitioner has not

deposited the due amount of Juice Stall situated in RSRTC

premises, she is not entitled for the possession of the Leather

Items Stall as per the condition No.2 of circular dated 23.05.2007

issued by the respondent-RSRTC.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by

the trial court, the petitioner as well as the respondent-RSRTC

have preferred two separate appeals which came to be decided by

appellate court vide order dated 05.03.2022 whereby, the

appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of

petitioner, however, accepted the appeal preferred on behalf of the

respondent-RSRTC and set aside the order dated 22.07.2021

passed by the trial court and has also dismissed the application

preferred under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151

CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

appellate court has wrongly dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of

petitioner and accepted the appeal filed on behalf of the

respondent-RSRTC. It is further submitted that no notice was ever

given to the petitioner informing her that some amount is due

against her.

(3 of 4)

[CW-5330/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

if the Leather Items Stall is given to anybody else, then the

petitioner would suffer irreparable losses. It is also submitted that

the trial court has not committed any illegality in restraining the

respondent-RSRTC to allot the Leather Items Stall to anybody

else, however, the appellate court without any reason has set

aside the order passed by the trial court.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the trial court while deciding the

application filed on behalf of petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1

and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has come to the conclusion that

the petitioner is not entitled for possession of the Leather Items

Stall as she has not deposited the due amount in lieu of the Juice

Stall, which was earlier allotted to her. However, the trial court