Judicature For Rajasthan High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M.TRIVEDI Ms. Shweta Arora, for the petitioner, BY THE COURT
O R D E R 1- The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated
17.5.2012, passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Mahawa, district Dausa, rejecting application of the petitioner filed under Or. I R. 10 C.P.C. 2- The only contention raised by learned counsel Ms. Shweta Arora, for the petitioner is that the petitioner should have been impleaded as party respondent in the election petition filed by the respondent no. 1 as the petitioner had fought the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dholkheda. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8906/2012 2 3- Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the petitioner earlier was already made party respondent in the election petition filed by the respondent no. 2 and subsequently was dropped along with the other respondents in the petition as per the order dated
13.12.2011. The said order does not appear to have been challenged by the petitioner and on the contrary he filed the application under Or. I R. 10 C.P.C. for impleading him again as the respondent in the petition. The trial court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the said application. The order passed by the trial court being just and proper, the present petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (Bela M. Trivedi)J. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Indu Janjani PS-cum-JW
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 06 Aug 2012. The bench was BELA M TRIVEDI.
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.