Research › Search › Judgment
Rajasthan High Court · body
2008 DIGILAW 625 (RAJ)
Panchhi v. Anjana
2008-02-27
PAWAN CHANDRA
body2008
ih- pUnz] lnL;-&;g fuxjkuh ewy izdj.k ds foi{khx.k us vUrxZr /kkjk 230 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ds rgr izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] vyoj ds vknsk fnukad 14-11-2007 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh gSA 2- fuxjkuh dh xzg.krk ij cgl lquh ,oa vkyksP; vknsk dk v/;;u fd;kA 3- vkyksP; vknskkuqlkj ;ksX; izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; us nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lqudj fuxjkdkjku }kjk pkgk x;k LFkxu fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha le>k gSA blh vknsk ls O;fFkr gksdj ;g fuxjkuh izLrqr dh gSA mudk dFku gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us foi{khx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 212 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ckcr vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk fnukad 28-9-2007 dks Lohdkj fd;k Fkk ftlls O;fFkr gksdj muds i{kdkjku us jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] vyoj ds le{k vihy nk;j dh Fkh vkSj lkFk gh fopkj.k U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] dBwej ftyk vyoj }kjk fn;s x;s LFkxu vknsk dks LFkfxr djus dk Hkh izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftls ;ksX; jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] vyoj us vLohdkj dj fn;k gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mUgksaus fuxjkuh dks xzg.k dj jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] vyoj ds vknsk fnukad 14-11-2007 dh fØ;kUofr dks LFkfxr djus ,oa fuxjkuh ds fuLrkj.k rd i{kdkjku dks jktLo jsdkMZ o dCts ds vk/kkj ij ;FkkfLFkfr dks cuk;s j[kus gsrq ikcUn dh izkFkZuk dh gSA mUgksaus vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa 2003¼1½ vkj-vkj-Vh- 192 ^^lq[kkflag o vU; cuke egyflag o vU;** rFkk 2007¼2½ vkj-vkj-Vh- 1089 ^^lkSHkkxey o vU; cuke bUnzey o vU;** dh uthjksa ij voyEc fd;k gS ftudk geus /;ku iwoZd o lEeku iwoZd v/;;u fd;kA 4- ^^lq[kkflag o vU; cuke egyflag o vU;** ds fofu.kZ; ds rF;ksa dk v/;;u djus ls tkfgj gksrk gS fd mDr ekeys ds rF; orZeku izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls bl laca/k esa fHkUu gS fd mDr izdj.k vfrfjDr ftyk U;k;k/khk] vuwix< ¼fopkj.k U;k;ky;½ }kjk vknsk 39 fu;e 1 o 2 lifBr /kkjk 151 tkCrk fnokuh ds laca/k esa ikfjr vknsk ls O;fFkr gksdj izFke vihy dk izdj.k gS tcfd orZeku fuxjkuh /kkjk 212 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh vihy dk vafre fu.kZ; ugha gksdj varfje LFkxu ls lEcfU/kr vknsk dh gSA 5- blh izdkj ls ^^lkSHkkxey o vU; cuke bUnzey o vU;** ds ekeys esa Hkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd vknsk 39 fu;e 1 o 2 tkCrk fnokuh ds vUrxZr izLrqr vkosnu fopkjk/khu gksrs gq, ;Fkk fLFkfr ds varfje vknsk dks vknsk 43 fu;e 1 ¼n½ ds rgr vihyscy ekuk gS vkSj ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk dks xzg.kkFkZ Lohdkj ugha djrs gq, [kkfjt dh gSA 6- gekjs le{k izLrqr fd;s x;s ekeys esa ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] dBwej us foi{khx.k ds izkFkZuki= vUrxZr /kkjk 212 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 dks Lohdkj dj izkFkhZx.k dks vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds vknsk ls ikcan fd;k gS ftlls O;fFkr gksdj izkFkhZx.k us /kkjk 225 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ds rgr izFke vihy jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] vyoj ds U;k;ky; esa nk;j dj j[kh gS tks orZeku esa yfEcr gksuk crk;k x;k gSA esjs er esa tc /kkjk 212 jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ds laca/k esa ikfjr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vknsk dh izFke vihy jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] vyoj ds ;gka yfEcr gS rks vkyksP; vknsk fnukad 14-11-2007 fu%lUnsg vUrorhZ; Interlocutory vknsk gS ftldh fuxjkuh xzg.k ;ksX; ugha gSA 7- bl lEcU/k esa 1990 ¼1½ vkj-,y-vkj- 27 ^^,l-,u- cuthZ cuke jktLFkku jkT; ,oa vU;** ds fofu.kZ; dk mYys[k djuk mfpr le>rk gwa ftlds rF; orZeku ekeys ds rF;ksa ls feyrs&tqyrs gSaA mDr fuxjkuh dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, lEekuh; U;k;k/khifr egksn; us mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd& "The learned Munsif rejected the application of the petitioner filed under O. 39 Rr.
1 & 2 C.P., and that order being appealable, the petitioner filed an appeal under O. 41 CPC. If any stay is sought from the appellate Court, then application would be under O. 41 R. 5 CPC. So, the plaintiff-petitioner might have moved an application before the learned District Judge under O. 39, Rr 1 & 2 CPC, but, actually that was under O. 41, R. 5, CPC, and the learned District Judge did not agree to grant interim stay. As is clear from the impugned order, the miscellaneous appeal is pending, and the date fixed therein was 27th May, 1988. Now, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents the next date is 12th Aug., 1988. It means the appeal is pending and the order of the learned District Judge, is not a final order. This order being an interlocutory order, and the main appeal being pending, no revision lies against such an order, before this Court. The plaintiff-petitioner should approach the learned District Judge for hearing his appeal at an early date, if he thinks that the matter is so important for him." 8- bl izdkj ls mijksDr fofu.kZ; ls Hkh gekjs er dks leFkZu izkIr gksrk gSA 9- mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa eSa fuxjkdkjku dh fuxjkuh dks xzg.k ;ksX; ugha ekurk gwaA vr% fuEu vknsk ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS% vknsk fuxjkdkjku dh fuxjkuh dks xzg.k ;ksX; ugha gksus ls bl Lrj ij gh vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA U;k; fgr esa ;g vknsk vo; fn;k tkrk gS fd jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] vyoj muds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr vihy la[;k 76@07 ^^ikaNh o vU; cuke vatuk o vU;** dk izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij kh?kz ,oa vf/kd ls vf/kd ,d ekg esa fuLrkj.k djsaxsA bl vknsk dh izfr ;ksX; jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] vyoj dks rqjUr izsf"kr dh tkosA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA[ 2008 DIGILAW 625 (RAJ) · digilaw.ai ]