Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1277 (RAJ)

Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Prem Sukh

2017-05-18

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.07.2010 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 23, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that after coming into the force of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 the petitioner wants to withdraw the present suit for filing the same before the appropriate Court/Tribunal. Further, the other proceedings for the same cause of action cannot be simultaneously undertaken, the present application is preferred for withdrawal of the present suit for filing it before the appropriate Court. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that while deciding the application, the relief of the petitioner cannot be splitted and only the application in part cannot be allowed as has been done by order dated 19.7.2010. To this application, a detailed reply has been filed by the respondent stating therein that by virtue of Section 32 (3) (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 all the applications, suits and other proceedings under the Repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of this Act before any Court shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Repealed Act as if Repealed Act has continued in force. However, if the plaintiff within a period of 180 days of the coming into the force of the Act of 2001, withdraw any suit or appeal or any other proceedings pending under the Repealed Act with liberty to file fresh petition may do so, if the same is filed within a period of 270 days from the commencement of the Act of 2001. Admittedly, the present suit was pending from 31.3.1999 and the present Act of 2001 has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and the present application under Order 23 Rule (1) is being preferred in the year 2010 i.e. the expiry of seven years, the same is not maintainable and the learned Court below has therefore rightly rejected the application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The fact of the matter is that an application under Order 23, Rule 1 filed by the petitioner specifically reads as under:- ^^2- ;g gS fd oknh u;s fdjk;k dkuwu ds rgr l{ke fdjk;k vf/kdj.k esa vthZ is'k djuk pkgrk gS ftlls ubZ vthZ izLrqr djus dh Lohd`fr lfgr bl okn dks izR;kgfjr djuk pkgrk gS D;ksafd ,d dh fookn ds nks vyx&vyx U;k;ky;ksa esa okn ugha py ldrs gSA vr% izkFkZuk gS fd oknh dks u;s fdjk;k dkuwu ds rgr vthZ is'k djus dh Lohd`fr lfgr bl okn dks izR;kgfjr djus dh vuqefr iznku djkbZ tkoaA** 5. By reading para 2, there is no doubt that the petitioner wanted to file the proceedings before the appropriate Court after coming into the force of the Act of 2001. The learned trial court has very specifically decided that in view of the admitted position i.e. the suit was filed on 31.3.99, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has come into force from 1.4.2003 and the application has been preferred by the petitioner in the year 2010 conclusively goes to show that the present application is barred by Section 32 (3) (a). I am in complete agreement with order passed by learned court below, the relevant portion of the order dated 19.7.2010 is reproduced as under:- ^^bl laca/k esa nksuksa i{kksa dks lqus tkus ds mijkar lacaf/kr fof/k;ksa dk v/;;u fd;k x;kA vkns'k 23 fu;e 1 tkŒnhŒ ds rgr ;g izko/kku gS fd ;fn U;k;ky; dk lek/kku gks tkrk gS fd okn dh fo"k;&oLrq ;k nkos ds Hkkx ds fy;s u;k okn la[;k fLFkr djus ds fy, oknh dks vuqKkr djus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj gS] ogka og ,slk fucZU/kuksa ij ftUgsa og Bhd le>s] oknh dks ,sls okn dh fo"k; oLrq ;k nkos ds ,sls Hkkx ds lac/k esa u;k okn izLrqr djus dh Lora=rk j[krs gq, ,sls okn ls ;k nkos ds ,sls Hkkx ls vius dks izR;kgfjr djus dh vuqKk ns ldrk gSA ijarq nwljh vkSj jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e 2001 dh /kkjk 32¼3½¼d½ ds vuqlkj bl vf/kfu;e ds izkjEHk dh rkjh[k dks] fujflr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; ds le{k yafcr leLr vkosnu] okn ;k vU; dk;Zokfg;ka fujflr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj bl izdkj pkyw j[kh vkSj fuiVk;h tk;saxh ekuksa fujflr vf/kfu;e izo`Rr cuk jgk Fkk vkSj bl vf/kfu;e ds vf/kfu;e ugha fd;k x;k FkkA rnkfi] oknh bl vf/kfu;e ds izo`Rr gksus ds 180 fnu dh dkykof/k ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj bl vf/kfu;e ds miac/kksa ds v/khu vkSj vuqlkj ,sls okn ;k vihy ;k fdlh vU; dk;Zokgh dh fo"k;&oLrq ds laca/k esa u;h vthZ QkbZy dh Lora=rk ds lkFk fujflr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu yafcr fdlh okn ;k vihy ;k fdlh vU; dk;Zokgh dh izR;kgfjr djus dk gdnkj gksxk vkSj ifjlhek ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, ,slh vthZ] ;fn dk vf/kfu;e ds izkjaHk ls nks lkS lRrj fnu dh dkyof/k ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj QkbZy dj nh tk;s rks] bl izdkj izR;kgwr fd;s x;s okn ds QkbZy fd;s tkus dh rkjh[k dks vkSj vihy ;k vU; dkZ;okgh ds izR;kgj.k ds n'kk esaa okn ftlls ,slh vihy ;k dk;Zokgh vkjaHk gqbZ ds QkbZy fd;s tkus dh rkjh[k dks QkbZy fd;k gqvk le>k tk;sxkA mijksDr nksuksa izko/kkuksa dk xgurkiwoZd v/k;;u djus ij fuoZpu ds vk/kkjHkwr fl)akrksa dh jks'kuh esa n`f"Vxr gksrk gS fd lnSo lkekU; fof/k ij fof/k"V fof/k vf/kHkkoh gksrh gSA pwafd jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 ds rgr u;h vthZ QkbZy djus gsrq ,d fofgr le;kof/k ifjlhek ds iz;kstu lfgr@fuf'pr dj nh xbZ gS ftlds vuqlkj jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 ds izkjaHk ls 270 fnu dh dkykof/k ds vanj fujflr fd;s x;s vf/kfu;e ds rgr yafcr okn ;k dk;Zokgh dks izR;kgfjr djus dh vthZ yxkbZ tk ldrh gSaA Lohd`r :i ls oknh }kjk orZeku okn fnukad 31-3-1999 dks bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;kA uohu jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;=a.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 fnukad 1-4-2003 dks izHkko esa vk;k gS vkSj mDr fnukad ls 270 fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj oknh dks orZeku okn u;s fdjk;k dkuwu esa vthZ izLrqr djus dh vuqefr lfgr izR;kgfjr djus dh vthZ U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djuh pkfg;s FkhA mDr 270 fnu dh vof/k bl izdj.k esa iw.kZ gks pqdh gS vkSj oknh }kjk izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 10-3-2010 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks fd fuf'pr :i ls fofgr vof/k 270 fnu dsa i'pkr dkQh yach vof/k O;rhr gks tkus ds mijkar fd;k x;k gSA vr% mijksDr leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh jks'kuh esa esjs fouez er esa oknh dks u;s fdjk;k dkuwu ds rgr vthZ izLrqr djus dh vuqefr lfgr okn dks izR;kgfjr fd;s tkus dh vuqefr iznku fd;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% oknh dk izkFkZuk&i= fd;k tkrk gSA** 6. It is also worth mentioning here that when the prayer made in the application is very specific i.e. the suit proceedings are withdrawn with liberty to agitate the same before the appropriate forum and the learned trial court after recording the finding has rejected the application then it cannot be said that only a part of the application has been accepted and another is rejected. When the trial court has rejected the application, it includes the averments made in its entirety has been rejected. On the admitted facts, I am of the view that the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 23, Rule 1 has rightly been rejected as the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act of 2001 are very specific for the maintainability of the pending suits to be filed within a specific time as mentioned in Section 32 (3) (a). Even as per Section 29, the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 will have precedence and will prevail over any laws which are inconsistent to or in conflict with the Act of 2001. 7. Hence in view of whatever stated above, I find no force in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The order dated 19.7.2010 is upheld. No order as to costs.