HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 58/2020

Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan, Lal

Kothi, Jaipur Through OIC ., Deputy Commissioner, Vidhyadhar

Nagar Zone, Jaipur Nagar Nigam.

----Petitioner-Defendant

Versus

1.

Hanuman Sahai Saini S/o Shri Rampal Saini, R/o Jairamji

Ki Kothi, V.k.i Area, Harmada, Sikar Road, Jaipur In The

Capacity Of General Power Of Attoreny Shri Jhabarmal

S/o Late Shri Girdhari Lal R/o Post Mandasi Via

Mukundgarh

Tehsil-Nagalgarh,

District-Jhunjhunu,

Rajasthan.

2.

Ashwani Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad

Sharma, R/o 89/3 ,vijayvadi, Teen Dukan, Dhehar Ka

Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur, Present Address Patta No. 284,

Harmada, Opposite Police And Post, Main Sikar Road,

Jaipur.

----Respondents-Plaintiffs

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. G.P. Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

21/03/2022

1.

This revision petition has been filed by Petitioner defendant-

Nagar Nigam, assailing order dated 06.08.2019 passed by

Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit

No.348/2015 whereby application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC was

dismissed, which has been affirmed in appeal No.42/2019 vide

order dated 14.11.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.1,

Jaipur Metropolitan.

(2 of 5)

[CR-58/2020]

2.

It appears from record that respondent No.1 has filed a civil

suit for permanent injunction against petitioner defendant- Jaipur

Nagar Nigam in relation to one plot No.284 having an area of

222.22 square yards situated at Village Harmada, District Jaipur.

Respondent No.1 alleged himself to be the power of attorney

holder of Shri Jabharmal, to whom plot in question was allotted by

Gram Panchayat, Harmada through registered patta dated

15.03.1982. Respondent No.1 has also averred in plaint that he

himself has acquired ownership and possession of plot in question

and has applied before Nagar Nigam, Jaipur for transfer of plot in

his own name. It has been averred that since few employees of

Nagar Nigam came to dispossess respondent No.1 from plot in

question, therefore, he had to file civil suit for permanent

injunction. The civil suit was filed in the year 2008.

3.

In this civil suit, the evidence of plaintiff has concluded and

same is pending at the stage of defendant's evidence. At this

stage, petitioner defendant- Nagar Nigam, Jaipur filed an

application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC dated 23.07.2019, alleging

inter alia that original allottee of plot in question namely

Jabharmal had died on 26.08.2009, therefore, civil suit filed by his

power of attorney holder Shri Hanuman Sahai Saini has abated.

The trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated

06.08.2018 with observations that original allottee Jabharmal has

executed agreement to sale, power of attorney and will in favour

of plaintiff- Hanuman Sahai Saini. It has been observed that

Hanuman Sahai Saini comes within definition of legal

representative of original allottee Jabharmal and is entitled to

continue civil suit in that capacity also. The trial Court observed

that in such scenario, due to death of Jabharmal, the civil suit filed

(3 of 5)

[CR-58/2020]

by Hanuman Sahai Saini does not abate at all and accordingly the

application filed by petitioner was dismissed.

4.

The Nagar Nigam, Jaipur assailed the order dated

06.08.2018 by way of filing civil misc. appeal No.42/2019. The

appeal was heard and dismissed by Additional District Judge No.1,

Jaipur Metropolitan. The Appellate Court observed that plaintiff

No.1 Hanuman Sahai Saini has agreement to sale, will and power

of attorney in his favour of plot in question and on the basis of

such documents, right to sue survives upon him as legal

representative of original allotee Jabharmal. That apart, Appellate

Court also observed tha