[2023/RJJP/010570]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 20/2023

Davis Lazarus S/o Shri D.V. Lazarus, R/o House No. 69/116,

Ganpati Marg, Opp. Amrita Devi Park, V.T. Road, Mansarovar,

Jaipur-302020

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Pankaj Maheshwari S/o Shri Navratan Bahediya, R/o

House No. 69/117, Ganpati Marg, Opp. Amrita Devi Park,

V.t. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020.

2.

Smt. Kalavati Devi Bahediya W/o Shri Navratan Bahediya,

R/o House No. 69/117, Ganpati Marg, Opp. Amrita Devi

Park, V.t. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020.

3.

Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Through Mayor Nagar Nigam Office,

Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

4.

Jaipur Nagar Nigam Thorugh Commissioner, Mansarovar

Zone, Near Fire Station, Gokhale Marg, Mansarovar,

Jaipur.

5.

Rajasthan Housing Board, Through President, Rajasthan

Housing Board Office At Near New Vidhansabha, Jyoti

Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Yogesh Pujari

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

12/05/2023

This revision petition has been preferred against the order

dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge

No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer (for brevity “the learned

trial Court”) whereby, an application filed by the

petitioner/defendant No.4 (hereinafter referred to as “the

[2023/RJJP/010570]

(2 of 4)

[CR-20/2023]

petitioner”) under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has

been dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents No.1 &

2/plaintiffs (for short “the plaintiffs”) filed a suit for mandatory

and permanent injunction against the petitioner and the

respondents no.3 to 5/defendants no.1 to 3 stating therein that

the petitioner was raising construction in violation of the Building

Bye Laws as also without taking prior permission of the

defendants No.1 to 3. An application filed therein by the petitioner

under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been

dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated

22.12.2022, impugned herein.

Assailing the order dated 22.12.2022, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that while dismissing the application, the

learned trial court did not appreciate that the defendant

No.3/Rajasthan Housing Board has taken a specific objection in its

written statement as to maintainability of the suit without service

of notice under Section 50 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act,

1970 (for brevity “the Act of 1970”). He, further submits that the

learned Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit

inasmuch as there is a Special Tribunal constituted for hearing the

matters wherein, the Jaipur Nagar Nigam is a party. He submits

that impleadement of the Rajasthan Housing Board as one of the

defendants would not oust jurisdiction of such Special Tribunal, it

being a formal party inasmuch as it is the Jaipur Nagar Nigam only

which has exclusive authority to grant permission to raise

construction. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be

allowed, the order dated 22.12.2022 be quashed and set aside

[2023/RJJP/010570]

(3 of 4)

[CR-20/2023]

and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 read with

Section 151 CPC be allowed.

Heard. Considered.

While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under

Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, the learned trial court

has observed that counsel for the Rajasthan Housing Board has

already put in appearance and has raised no such objection as to

maintainability of the suit in absence of service of a notice under

Section 50 of the Act of 1970 and by the time the order dated

22.12.2022 was passed, admittedly no written statement was filed

by the defendant No.3. In these circumstances, the submission is

unacceptable. Even otherwise also, it is a well settled legal

principle that an objection as to maintainability of the suit against

the Governm