Banwarilal Meena v. Mukesh Kumar Meena
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rattiram Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 312, Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Malakheda, Tehsil Malakheda, District Alwar Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI 28/07/2025 Order The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar (Raj.), whereby application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had travelled to Jaipur on 10.12.2023 for the purpose of undergoing a kidney transplant, which was performed on
Operative part
20.12.2023. The petitioner was required to remain in Jaipur for a period of two months post-surgery, and as a result thereof, he was unaware of the institution of the summary suit or the service of summons. It is further submitted that the suit has been falsely [2025:RJ-JP:28442] (2 of 2) [CW-6406/2025] instituted by the respondent, as the entire amount in respect of the cheque bounce case filed by the respondent has already been paid. Therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 18.03.2025 may be quashed & set aside and the petitioner may be granted one opportunity for leave to defend before the learned Trial Court. Heard. Perused. The Learned Trial Court, after considering all the facts, has passed a reasoned order, which is just & proper. No illegality, infirmity or error has been committed by the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid order. Hence, there is no scope for interference in the aforesaid order under the limited writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. SAURABH /98 (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.