Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 17 (RAJ)

Swati Bhardwaj v. M/s Vasundhara Fuels And Others

2020-01-02

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Contempt Petition No. 49/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') under Order 14 Rule 5 Read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant')- Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The Trial Court vide its order dated 1.12.2008 dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved there from, the plaintiffs filed a Civil Misc Appeal. The Appellate Court vide its order dated 30.5.2009 partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs; set-aside the order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the Trial Court and allowed the application for temporary injunction. 3. On 11.9.2018, the defendant filed a contempt petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC before the court below alleging disobedience of the order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the Appellate Court. The plaintiffs filed reply to the said application. On 27.4.2019, the Court below framed the following issues: 4. The defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC and suggested two more issues. 5. After hearing the arguments, the Court below vide its order dated 16.11.2019 dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that since the date of order dated 30.5.2009, the defendant is being deprived of her legal right of signature and taking care of affairs above Rs. 20,000/-, therefore, it is essential to frame the additional issues, as suggested by the defendant. However, the learned Court below has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter. On this count, the impugned order dated 16.11.2019 deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. I am of the considered view that the issues framed by the Appellate Court had subsumed the issues sought to be framed by the defendant, as such no additional issue, as suggested by the defendant, was required to be framed. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the court below. 9. Considered. 8. I am of the considered view that the issues framed by the Appellate Court had subsumed the issues sought to be framed by the defendant, as such no additional issue, as suggested by the defendant, was required to be framed. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the court below. 9. No ground is made out for this court to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.11.2019, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.