HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1119/2018

Jagdish Prasad Kedia S/o Purshottam Das Kedia, R/o 242,

Balkeshwar Road, Vidhani Cottage, Mumbai Through His Power

Of Attorney Holder - Poonam Chand Jain S/o (Late) Shri Uttam

Chand Jain, Aged 80 Years, R/o 1634, Sonthliwalon Ka Rasta,

Chaura Rasta, Jaipur

----Appellant

Versus

1.

Maji Rajendra Rajlaxmi Alias Fanendra Rajlaxmi W/o

Colonel Maharaj Bahadur Singh Ji Of Isarda, R/o 6, Civil

Lines, Jaipur (Raj)

1/1.

Jagmohan Singh S/o Chhagan Singh, R/o Isarda House,

Kothi No.6, Civil Lines, Jaipur

1/2.

Manish Singh S/o Jagmohan Singh, R/o Isarda House,

Kothi No.6, Civil Lines, Jaipur

2.

Kunj Bihari Lal Saxena S/o Shri Pyarelal Saxena, R/o Plot

No. H-15, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur

2/1.

Neeraj Saxena S/o Late Shri Kunj Bihari Lal Saxena, R/o

12/226, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur

2/2.

Smt. Nirmal Saxena D/o Late Shri Kunj Bihari Lal Saxena,

R/o 12/226, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur

2/3.

Smt. Neelam Saxena D/o Late Shri Kunj Bihari Lal

Saxena, R/o 12/226, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur

3.

M/s. Manoj Himanshu And Company, Partnership Firm,

Through Partner Maji Rajendra Rajlaxmi Alias Fanendra

Rajlaxmi R/o 6, Civil Lines, Jaipur

4.

M/s. Raj Construction, A Partnership Firm 251, Dr. Dada

Bhai Naoroji Road, Mumbai-400001, Through Partner Shri

Radheyshyam Chiranjilal Goenka

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Vikram Singh for

Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

(2 of 3)

[CFA-1119/2018]

Order

23/05/2022

1.

Appellant-defendant has preferred this first appeal feeling

aggrieved by denial of decree for specific performance vide

judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 passed by Additional

District Judge Jaipur Metropolitan No.4, Jaipur in Civil Suit

No.85/2009.

2.

It appears from the judgment dated 28.08.2018 that the trial

Court, instead of passing decree for specific performance of

agreement dated 18.01.1982, has passed decree holding the

plaintiff as entitled to get the refund of amount from defendants.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, on instructions of

the appellant submits that appellant does not want to pursue the

first appeal and seeks permission to withdraw the appeal.

4.

For the reasons mentioned herein above, permission to

withdraw the appeal is granted.

5.

Hence, the first appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant prays for refund of Court

fee and submits that the appellant having the spirit of Lok Adalat

has settled the dispute out of Court and has withdrawn the first

appeal. This Court deems it just and proper that the analogy of

Section 65(B) of the Rajasthan Court Fees And Suit Valuation Act,

1961 is applicable in present case and at least, an an incentive to

appellant for withdrawal of appeal, the court fee of Rs.54,195/-

paid by him, is liable to be refunded.

7.

This Court following the judgments passed in case of Mool

Singh Vs. Abdul Jabbar [(2012) 1 DNJ Raj. 31], Mangi Lal

Vs. State of Raj. [(2018) 3 RLW 2129 Raj.] and in S.B. Civil

First Appeal No.576/2015; Avdesh Kumar Gupta vs.

(3 of 3)

[CFA-1119/2018]

Ramavatar Gupta And Anr. vide order dated 20.04.2022

allowed the refund of Court fee to the appellant on withdrawal of

appeal.

8.

Accordingly, Registry is directed to do the needful to refund

the Court fees paid by the appellant.

9.

Stay application and any other pending applications, if any,

also stand disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

Simple Kumawat /04