Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2383 (RAJ)

Subhash v. Purushottam

2008-10-22

KULDEEP SHARMA

body2008
Judgment 'kekZ] lnL;-&;g fuxjkuh Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh vyoj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 21-8-07 ds fo:) jktLFkku dk'rdkj vf/kfu;e 1955 ¼la{ksi esa vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 230 ds vUrxZr izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- mHk; i{k ds fOk}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k dh cgl lquh xbZA 3- odhy vizkFkhZ us ;g dFku fd;k fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ nk;j fd;s x;s okn dks vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 tk-nh- ds rgr fnukad 21-6-08 dks [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl dkj.k nkos ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku ikfjr fd;s x;s vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vkns'k ds fo:) nk;j dh xbZ ;g fuxjkuh izHkkoghu gks tkus ds dkj.k dkfcy [kkfjt gS vkSj mUgksaus vius dFku dh iqf"V esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ¼2004½ 11 ,llhlh 168 dk n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;k rFkk mUgksaus ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k fd mi[k.M vf/kdkjh }kjk nkok [kkfjt dj nsus ds vkns'k ds fo:) izkFkhZ us Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa vihy Hkh nk;j dj nh gS] tks bl ckr dh iqf"V djrk gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa okn dks vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 ds rgr [kkfjt dj fn;k gSA 4- odhy izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ }kjk fn;s x;s rdksZ dk [k.Mu djrs gq, dFku fd;k fd izkFkh }kjk nk;j fuxjkuh okn ds [kkfjt gks tkus ls izHkkoghu ugha gksrh gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ us mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds fo:) Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh vyoj ds U;k;ky; esa vihy izLrqr dj nh gS vkSj vihy nkos dh fujUrj izfØ;k gSA vius dFku ds leFkZu esa ,vkbZvkj 2008 mMhlk ist 133 dh uthj is'k dhA vr% bl U;k;ky; esa py jgh fuxjkuh iks"kuh; gSA vr% odhy vizkFkhZ }kjk fy;s x;s rdZ esa dkuwuh lkj ugha gksus ls mls [kkfjt fd;k tkosA 5- geus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk mHk; i{k ds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk Hkh xgurk ls v/;;u fd;kA 6- ;g fufoZokn :i ls fl) gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ }kjk nk;j fd;s x;s jktLo okn dks vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 tk-nh- ij mHk; i{k dh cgl lqudj nkos dks fnukad 21-6-08 dks [kkfjt dj fn;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ us bl vkns'k ds fo:) vihy Hkw izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dj nh gS rFkk nkSjkus nkok izkFkhZ ds i{k esa vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh xbZ Fkh ftlds fo:) vizkFkhZ }kjk vihy fd;s tkus ij vihy vf/kdkjh }kjk vihy dks Lohdkj dj vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds vkns'k dks vikLr dj fn;k Fkk rRi'pkr izkFkhZ us ;g fuxjkuh bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh gSA nkSjkus nkok tks vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkrh gS og dsoy nkos ds fu.kZ; rd gh izHkkoh jgrh gS vkSj nkos ds fu.kZ; ds lkFk gh og Lor% gh izHkkoghu gks tkrh gSA bl ckcr ge vfHkHkk"kd vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr Shipping Corpn. of India Ltd. vs. Machado Bros. (2004) 11 SCC 168 ftlesa ;g vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gS fd& That interlocutory orders are made in aid of final orders and not vice versa. No interlocutory order will survive after the original proceeding comes to an end. This is a well established principle in law as could be seen from the judgment of this Court in Kavita Trehan vs. Balsara Hygiene products Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 380 Wherein it is held (SCC P. 391, Para 23) Union dismissal of the suit the interlicutory order stood set aside and that whatever was done to upset the status quo, was required to be undone to the extent possible. bl izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vuqlkj bUVjyksdsVªh vkns'k ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ ;g fuxjkuh ewy okn ds fu.kZ; ds lkFk gh izHkkoghu gks tkrh gSA tgka rd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr dkuwuh uthj dk vkSfpR; gS ;g uthj izLrqr izdj.k ij pLik ugha gksrh gSA 7- ifj.kkeLo:i ge vfHkHkk"kd vizkFkhZ }kjk fn;s x;s dkuwuh rdZ ,oa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUr ls lger gS vkSj ;g fuxjkuh ewy okn ds [kkfjt gksus ds lkFk gh izHkkoghu gks tkus ls dkfcy [kkfjt gSA 8- vr% mijksDr foospu ds vuqlj.k esa ;g fuxjkuh [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA 9- fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA