Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 370 (RAJ)

Pukhraj v. Ratan Lal

2021-02-12

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No. 154/2019 whereby the application preferred by respondent No. 1 Ratanlal under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and directed Pukhraj (present appellant) and Bhanwar Lal (respondent No. 2 herein) to open the locks of the suit property and allow the respondent Ratan Lal free access and use of the property in question. 3. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submits that the present appellant as well as the respondents Ratan Lal and Bhanwar Lal are the plaintiffs in the suit property, therefore, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC preferred on behalf of one plaintiff i.e. Ratanlal against the co-plaintiff Pukhraj and Bhanwar Lal is not maintainable and no relief can be granted in the application so preferred in view of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the application preferred by respondent Ratan Lal under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, it is nowhere stated that the presently the property is being used by them or which portion of the property is being specifically utilised for habitation. He further submits that the respondent Ratan Lal is not residing at Nokha where the suit property situated. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court, on the face of it, suffers from illegality and requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. J.K. Bhaiya, learned counsel for the respondent-Ratan Lal submits that although it is a fact that the present appellant was a co-plaintiff in the suit, however, during pendency of the suit, the property was locked by the present appellant and access to the same was disallowed. He further submits that there are seven brothers in the family for which, a suit for partition is pending consideration before the trial court. He submits that although he is not residing at Nokha where the suit property is situated but as and when his family members including the respondent Ratan Lal visits Nokha, they are staying in the property. He further submits that there are seven brothers in the family for which, a suit for partition is pending consideration before the trial court. He submits that although he is not residing at Nokha where the suit property is situated but as and when his family members including the respondent Ratan Lal visits Nokha, they are staying in the property. He further submits that this contention of the respondent Ratan Lal is also admitted by the plaintiff in the suit itself. He submits that as per the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, even if a person is plaintiff, the Court can pass the order, if it thinks fit, in the larger interest of the parties and for preservation of the suit property. He further submits that in the suit for partition, all the parties are plaintiffs and defendants and for the purpose, he relies upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Balan Nambiar Vs. Sankara Kurup reported in 2014 (2) Civil Court Cases 133 (Kerala). He further submits that in the garb of the opening of the locks, the respondent will not try to alienate or change the basic structure of the property. 6. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bhanwar Lal submits that if the locks are opened by the appellant Pukhraj, he is also ready and willing to open the locks. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the order dated 21.10.2019. 8. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned that a plaintiff cannot file an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying for relief against the co-plaintiff, it is made clear that as per the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, if an application is preferred, then in such circumstances, for the larger interest of the utilisation of the property by the parties, the Court can pass the order, if it thinks fit, till the disposal of the suit or until further orders. The finding of the trial court on this issue is well reasoned and does not require interference by this Court, the same is reproduced as under:- ^^vkns'k 39 fu;e 1¼d½ esa fMQsUMsV 'kCn Á;qDr uk fd;k tkdj ^^ikVhZ** 'kCn Á;qDr fd;k x;k gSA i{kdkj esa oknhx.k ,oe~ Áfroknhx.k lHkh lekfgr gSA gLrxr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ÁkFkZuk i= ls lacaf/kr nkok caVokjs dk nkok gS] ftlesa ekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkar ,vkbZvkj ,llh ist 1754 pUæeksgu cuke ckiw dks;Iik esa Áfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj caVokjs ds nkos esa oknh ,oe~ Áfroknhx.k leku LVsV~l ds i{kdkj gksrs gSA ÁLrqr ekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2007 ¼3½ flfoy dksVZ dSlst ist 780 jktŒ Jherh ljLorhnsoh cuke egkjko c`tjktflag ,oa vU; esa f}rh; vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ÁkFkZuk i= esUVsuscy gksus ckcr~ fl)kar Áfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr dk lexz :i ls voyksdu djus ls okn ckgwY;rk ds fuokj.k gsrq Hkh ÁkFkhZ }kjk vÁkFkhZx.k ds fo:) ÁLrqr gLrxr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk ÁkFkZuk i= esUVsuscy gSA mDr ds vfrfjDr ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ÁkFkZuk i= tks bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk fnukad 30-04-2019 dks fuf.kZr dh xbZ Fkh] mDr vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk es gLrxr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds vÁkFkhZ iq[kjkt us oknxzLr Hkwfe ij gLrxr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ÁkFkhZ jruyky dk mlds lkFk la;qDr dCtk gksus ckcr~ vfHkopu fd;s Fks ,oe~ mDr ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ÁkFkZuk i= es i{kdkjku dh la;qDr fjgk;'k dk vfHkopu djrs gq, i{kdkj dk la;qDr dCtk gksuk tkfgj fd;k x;k FkkA gLrxr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ÁkFkZuk i= ds vÁkFkhZ Hkaojyky dh rjQ ls ÁLrqr tokc esa oknxzLr lEifRr ij lHkh i{kdkjku dk la;qDr :i ls dCtk gksus o nks dejksa esa ÁkFkhZ jruyky dk lkeku gksus ckcr~ vfHkopu fd;s x, gSA mHk; i{kksa ds vfHkopuksa ls oknxzLr lEifRr ds ÁFke n`"V~;k gh vfoHkkftr gksus ,oe~ lacaf/kr nkok foHkktu dk gksus dks n`f"Vxr~ j[krs gq, oknxzLr lEifRr ij vU; i{kdkjku ds lkFk ÁkFkhZ dk Hkh ÁFke n`"V~;k dCtk gksuk ÁdV o lkfcr gSA ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ÁkFkZuk i= es ÁkFkhZ ds dCts ckcr~ ÁdV mDr lexz rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkjksijkar gh ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ÁkFkZuk i= dks fuf.kZr dj oknxzLr lEifRr dks jgu] cS;] eqUrfdy o gLrkUrfjr ugha djus ckcr~ vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk] rRi'pkr~ gLrxr~ f}rh; vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ÁkFkZuk i= es vÁkFkhZx.k ds tokc ls ;g Li"V gS fd vÁkFkhZx.k ds }kjk oknxzLr lEifRr ij rkys yxkdj ÁkFkhZ dks oknxzLr lEifRr esa Áos'k o mi;ksx miHkksx ls gh oafpr fd;k tk jgk gSA ftl rF; dh lEiqf"V ÁkFkZuk i= ds fu.kZ; ds oDr ÁkFkhZ jruyky ds dkfct gksus ckcr~ lHkh rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds fopkjksikar gh ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ÁkFkZuk i= dk fu.kZ; gksus ds i'pkr~ gLrxr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds i{kdkjku iq[kjkt o Hkaojyky ds }kjk oknxzLr lEifRr ij rkys yxkdj gLrxr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ÁkFkhZ jruyky dks oknxzLr lEifRr ds mi;ksx miHkksx o vkokxeu ls oafpr fd;k tk jgk gS] tks ifjfLFkfr ÁkFkhZ jruyky ds lg&fgLlsnkj gksus dh o la;qDr :i ls dkfct gksus dh ÁFke n`"V~;k ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr~ j[krs gq, fdlh Hkh Ádkj ls U;k;ksfpr ugha ekuh tk ldrhA mDr ds vfrfjDr ÁkFkhZ dks oknxzLr lEifRr ds dCts ls rkys yxkdj oafpr djus ckcr~ mijksDr ifjfLFkfr vÁkFkhZx.k }kjk ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ÁkFkZuk i= ds oDr ÁkFkhZ ds dCts ckcr~ ifjfLFkfr dks ifjorZu djus okyh ifjfLFkfr o rF; gSA ekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2007 ¼2½ lqÁhe ist 772 ehjk pkSgku cuke g"kZ fc'uksbZ esa ;g fl)kar Áfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd U;k;ky; i{kdkjku dks /kkjk 151 O;ŒÁŒlŒ esa ÁnRr vUrjfufgZr 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq, okfil mlh fLFkfr esa igqapk ldrk gS] tgka os fu"ks/kkKk vkns'k tkjh djus ls iwoZ FksA mDr ekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa csdCtk fd, x, i{kdkj dks dCts dks jsLVksj djokus dh vf/kdkfjrk U;k;ky; esa fufgr gksus ckcr~ egRoiw.kZ fl)kar Áfrikfnr fd;s x, gSA ekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkar flfoy dksVZ dSlst 2008 ¼3½ ist 01 ,llh ruqJh clw cuke bZ'kjkuh Álkn c'kq esa Hkh ;g fl)kar Áfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd mu ekeyksa esa tgka tks vkns'k vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 O;ŒÁŒlŒ ls doj ugha gksrs gS] mu ekeyksa esa Hkh U;k;ky; U;k;fgr esa fu"ks/kkKk ckcr~ vkns'k ikfjr dj ldrk gSA gLrxr~ Ádj.k esa ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ÁkFkZuk i= ds fuf.kZr gksus ds i'pkr~ ÁkFkhZ ds dCts ckcr~ ifjfLFkfr esa vÁkFkhZx.k ds }kjk tks ifjorZu fd;k x;k gS] mDr ifjorZu dks lekIr fd;k tkdj ÁkFkhZ dks ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk ÁkFkZuk i= fuf.kZr gksrs oDr ÁkFkhZ ds dCts ckcr~ ifjfLFkfr esa iquZLFkkfir fd;k tkuk U;k; ds mn~ns'; ds fy;s vko';d o mfpr Árhr gksrk gS ,oe~ U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr ÁFke vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds ÁkFkZuk i= ds vkns'k ds nq:i;ksx ds fuokj.k ds fy;s Hkh vko';d Árhr gksrk gSA gLrxr~ ekeys ds lexz rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oe~ ÁkFkhZ dh rjQ ls ÁLrqr mijksDr ekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa eas Áfrikfnr fl)karksa ds Ádk'k esa ÁFke n`"V~;k ekeyk ÁkFkhZ ds i{k esa] vÁkFkhZx.k ds fo:) cuuk ik;k tkrk gSA Ádj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa o ÁkFkhZ dh vksj ls ÁLrqr mDr ekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh jks'kuh esa vÁkFkhZ la[;k 1 dh rjQ ls ÁLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa Áfrikfnr fl)karksa dk ykHk gLrxr~ Ádj.k esa vÁkFkhZ la[;k 1 ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA** 9. As far as the fact that the respondent Ratan Lal is not residing in Nokha where the suit property is situated, it is made clear that since the suit for partition is still pending consideration, the suit property is liable to be utilised by all the members of the family and since it is brought on record that there are two rooms which are being utilised by Ratan Lal, there is no illegality if the same are continued to be utilised by Ratan Lal. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court giving a direction to open the locks and allow free access to the respondents does not suffer from any illegality. It is ordered that no material change will be made to the property in question if the same is utilised by the parties. It is made clear that in the garb of the order passed by the trial court dated 21.10.2019, the respondents shall not change the structure of the property, forcibly occupy the property which is in the possession of appellant, make any construction or will not misuse the same on any account. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. The finding recorded by the trial court are upheld.