Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2146 (RAJ)

Aam Janta Somesar v. Vijay Raj M. Parmar

2014-12-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality of the order dated 15.9.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 1 , 14 & 15 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed. 3. A reply to the application seeking temporary injunction was filed by the respondents, however, the same did not bear the verification and signatures of the defendants as envisaged by provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 CPC. 4. An application came to be filed by the petitioner inter-alia raising objection regarding maintainability of such a reply specially in view of the fact that no such power was given to the counsel under the Vakalatnama. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the provisions of Order 6, Rule 1 CPC does not apply to reply to an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC and rejected the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the reply filed by the respondents is no reply in the eye of law as the same does not bear the signatures of the defendants and there is no verification. 7. Further attention was drawn to the Vakalatnama (Ex.-4), which is only in the nature of authorisation and does not contain any power to file written statement/reply. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that irrespective of the merit of the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondents have subsequently filed reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC duly signed by the defendants and verified by them and therefore, the objections, if any, have already been taken care of and therefore, the petition deserves to the dismissed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. So far as the maintainability of objection regarding compliance of provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 CPC to a reply to application seeking temporary injunction is concerned, the finding of the trial court that the same would not apply to reply to application cannot be said to be a correct proposition of law. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. So far as the maintainability of objection regarding compliance of provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 CPC to a reply to application seeking temporary injunction is concerned, the finding of the trial court that the same would not apply to reply to application cannot be said to be a correct proposition of law. The provisions of Rule VI, Rule 14 CPC applies to the said proceedings with the same rigour. However, the provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 CPC cannot be utilised by either side with the view to non-suit the other side and defect of non-compliance of provisions under Order 6, Rule 14 CPC are by their very nature curable. 11. Admittedly, the respondents have already cured this defect by filing the fresh reply duly signed and verified by the defendants. 12. In that view of the matter, the objection of the petitioners, if any, has already come to an end. 13. In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******