✦ Rajasthan High Court · 22 Mar 2012

No. 3179 of 2012 · Rajasthan High Court

No. 3179 of 2012USTI MAHESH BHAGWATI6 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

22nd March, 2012 HON' BLE MR. J USTI CE MAHESH BHAGWATI Gaj endr a Si ngh Rat hor e, Mr . pet i t i oner s . f or t he By way of t he i ns t ant wr i t pet i t i on, t he pet i t i oner s hav e bes eec hed t o quas h and s et as i de t he or der dat ed 14t h Mar c h, 2012, wher eby t he l ear ned Di s t r i c t J udge, Dhol pur , di s mi s s ed t he appl i c at i on f i l ed under Sec t i on 151 of CPC.

2.

The pet i t i oner s hav e c ome out wi t h a c as e t hat t he r es pondent no. 1 Muni c i pal Boar d, Dhol pur , i nv i t ed appl i c at i ons f or auc t i on of pl ot s way bac k i n t he y ear 1973. The hus band of t he pet i t i oner pur c has ed one pl ot no. 46 i n t he s ai d auc t i on f or a c ons i der at i on of Rs . 2, 100/ - , as he had gi v en t he hi ghes t bi d and pur s uant t o t he t er ms and c ondi t i ons of t he bi d, t he hus band of t he pet i t i oner depos i t ed 25% of t he t ot al c ons i der at i on amount i n t he of f i c e of r es pondent no. 1 on 7t h J ul y , 1973 t hr ough t he r ec ei pt no. 59. The pet i t i oner s c ame t o k now about t he f ac t t hat t he r es pondent no. 1 was auc t i oni ng t he s ai d pl ot , henc e, t hey gav e a not i c e under Sec t i on 80 of CPC t o t he r es pondent s , des pi t e t hat t he r es pondent no. 1 put t hi s pl ot t o auc t i on, whi c h i s l i k el y t o t ak e pl ac e t omor r ow on 23r d Mar c h,

2012. The pet i t i oner s f i l ed an appl i c at i on bef or e t he l ear ned Di s t r i c t J udge, Dhol pur , but t he s ame was di s mi s s ed s ans as s i gni ng any c ogent r eas on. Lear ned c ouns el c anv as s ed t hat t he mandat or y pr ov i s i on of Sec t i on 80 of CPC env i s ages f or gi v i ng a not i c e of 60 day s t o t he per s on f or f i l i ng a s ui t agai ns t hi m, t he per i od of 60 day s has not ex pi r ed and t he r es pondent no. 1 i s goi ng t o auc t i on t he s ai d pl ot t omor r ow, henc e, t he r es pondent no. 1 may be r es t r ai ned f r om put t i ng t hi s pl ot f or auc t i on on 23r d Mar c h,

3.

Lear ned Di s t r i c t J udge, Dhol pur i s f ound t o hav e di s mi s s ed t he appl i c at i on f or t he s i mpl e r eas on t hat t her e was no l i t i gat i on pendi ng about t he s ai d pl ot i n hi s c our t . He f ur t her obs er v ed t hat nei t her t he pet i t i oner had f i l ed any s ui t nor any di s put e wi t h r egar d t o t he s ame pl ot was pendi ng i n any ot her c our t . Henc e, s ans t her e bei ng any s ui t pendi ng i n t he c our t , t he i nj unc t i on or der wi t h r egar d t o t he s ai d pl ot c annot be i s s ued. I am af r ai d t hat i n a s i t uat i on gi v en, as t o whet her t he i nher ent power s under Sec t i on 151 of CPC c an be i nv ok ed by t he c our t f or t he s ai d pur pos e. Undeni abl y and undi s put abl y , no i nj unc t i on or der c an be i s s ued unl es s t he di s put e wi t h r egar d t o t he pr oper t y i n ques t i on has been pendi ng i n t he c our t and t he i nher ent power s c annot be ex er c i s ed s o as t o nul l i f y t he pr ov i s i ons of CPC. The i mpugned or der i s f ound t o be per f ec t l y j us t and pr oper , i n t he f ac t s and c i r c ums t anc es of t he c as e and s uf f er s f r om no f ac t ual or l egal i nf i r mi t y , t hus , t he wr i t pet i t i on bei ng dev oi d of any s ubs t anc e des er v es t o be di s mi s s ed at t he t her s hol d.

4.

For t he r eas ons s t at ed abov e, t he wr i t pet i t i on f ai l s and t he s ame bei ng ber ef t any mer i t s t ands di s mi s s ed i n l i mi ne.

5.

Cons equent upon t he di s mi s s al of t he wr i t pet i t i on, t he s t ay appl i c at i on does not s ur v i v e and t he s ame al s o s t ands di s mi s s ed. Mak/- 127 All Corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Anil Makawana Jr. Personal Assistant ( MAHESH BHAGWATI ) , J .

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 22 Mar 2012. The bench was USTI MAHESH BHAGWATI.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Rajasthan High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. No. 3179 of 2012). ← Search more judgments