Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 94 (RAJ)

Harish Chand v. Anguri Devi

2022-01-11

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2022
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment dated 30.05.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff 1963 has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, wherein it was averred that he is doing the business of selling and purchasing the utensils at the suit shop since the year 1972. The suit shop was taken on rent by him in the year 1972 from the husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendants no. 2 to 5 on monthly rent of Rs. 800/- and the tenancy was oral tenancy. 3. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. 4. Necessary issues were framed and after hearing the arguments, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 30.5.2019 has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that total 9 issues were framed by the trial court, but the trial court gave its finding on 6 issues, out of which issues no. 5 and 6 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. He further submits that without considering the material evidence on record, the impugned judgment has been passed, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants defended the impugned judgment and stated the same to be just and proper. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. From a perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, it is evident that without giving issue-wise finding and without considering and appreciating the material evidence on record, the impugned judgment has been passed. The judgment passed by the trial court appears to be cryptic, therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition filed by the plaintiff is partly allowed, the impugned judgment dated 30.5.2019 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to decide the suit filed by the plaintiff afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by its earlier judgment dated 30.5.2019. 10. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 4.2.2022. 11. 10. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 4.2.2022. 11. Record of the trial court be sent forthwith. 12. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants shall maintain status-quo with regard to the shop in question.