Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gurdeo Singh Vs. Malla Singh

Gurdeo Singh vs Malla Singh

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Oct 07, 1985
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767288

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Civil Revision No. 23 of 1985
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2--Order passed after inspecting site and is reasonable--No error of jurisdiction--Held, no case for interference is made out.;Revision Dismissed -

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gurdeo Singh

Respondent

Malla Singh

Legal References

Reported In
1986WLN(UC)731

Excerpt

civil procedure code - order 39, rules 1 and 2--order passed after inspecting site and is reasonable--no error of jurisdiction--held, no case for interference is made out.;revision dismissed - panna chand jain, j.1. this revision is directed against the order dt. 10th sept. 1984, passed by the learned district judge, sri ganganagar in misc. appeal no. 33/84, reversing the order dated 20th april, 1984, passed by the learned munsif on an application under order 39, rules 1 and 2, cpc.2. the learned munsif vide order dated april 20, 1984, dismissed the application for the grant of temporary injunction. aggrieved by the said order mala singh plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned distt. judge, sri ganganagar. the learned district judge inspected the site and after that passed impugned order. learned district judge dirceted the defendant not to demolish a kotha which is in khasra no. 69. the learned court also restrained the defendant from not interfering in the compound of the plaintiff.3. i have given my the thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.4. the main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate court should not have interfered with the discretionary order passed by the learned munsif. he submitted that no circumstances have been pointed out by the appellate court for interfering in the order passed by the learned munsif. controverting his submission, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the order was passed after inspecting the site inspection the appellate court could notice that there was 3/1-2 feet passage, in kariarsingh's compound. in my opinion the order passed by the learned district judge is quite reasonable and no case is made out for any interference in this revision petition. there is no error of jurisdiction.5. the revision petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Panna Chand Jain, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 10th Sept. 1984, passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Misc. Appeal No. 33/84, reversing the order dated 20th April, 1984, passed by the learned Munsif on an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC.

2. The learned Munsif vide order dated April 20, 1984, dismissed the application for the grant of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said order Mala Singh plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Distt. Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The learned District Judge inspected the site and after that passed impugned order. Learned District Judge dirceted the defendant not to demolish a Kotha which is in khasra No. 69. The learned Court also restrained the defendant from not interfering in the compound of the plaintiff.

3. I have given my the thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the discretionary order passed by the learned Munsif. He submitted that no circumstances have been pointed out by the Appellate Court for interfering in the order passed by the learned Munsif. Controverting his submission, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that the order was passed after inspecting the site inspection the Appellate Court could notice that there was 3/1-2 feet passage, in Kariarsingh's Compound. In my opinion the order passed by the learned District Judge is quite reasonable and no case is made out for any interference in this revision petition. There is no error of jurisdiction.

5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial