Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36415 (RAJ)

LRS. OF SHIV DAYAL MANGAL v. SHRI OSWAL SINGH SABHA

CRW/11/2023 · 2025-01-17

Dinesh Mehta

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 11/2023 1. Lrs. Of Shiv Dayal Mangal, S/o Late Shri Nathu Lal Ji, Through His Lrs. 2. Smt. Dayawati W/o Late Shri Shiv Dayal Mangal, Aged About 92 Years, Resident Of Quarter No. 3, Next To Bherubag, Outside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. 3. Dr. Kusum Choudhary D/o Late Shri Shiv Dayal Mangal, Aged About 72 Years, R/o 45A, New Keshav Nagar, V Road, Udaipur. 4. Smt. Kamlesh Gupta W/o Shri Ramswaroop Gupta, Aged About 70 Years, D/o Late Shri Shiv Dayal Mangal, R/o Shyam Kripa, Opp. Bambay Motors, 12Th Road, Jodhpur. 5. Mahesh Mangal S/o Late Shri Shiv Dayal Mangal, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 57, Suraj Nagar, (East), Civil Lines, Jaipur. 6. Smt. Lalita Garg W/o Shri Ashok Garg, Aged About 64 Years, D/o Late Shri Shiv Dayal Mangal, R/o 10, Rajendra Nagar, Agrawal Colony, Gayariwas Road, Udaipur. 7. Dr. Ravindra Mangal S/o Late Shri Shiv Dayal Mangal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Quarter No. 3, Next To Bherubag, Outside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus Shri Oswal Singh Sabha, Jodhpur, Through Secretary, The Education Committee (Shikshan Samiti) (Shri Singh Sabha), Address Sardar Senior Secondary School, Outside Jalori Gate, Brahmbag Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 17/01/2025 1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioners through Mr. Ripudaman Singh, whereas the order under consideration dated 27.07.2023 deciding petitioner’s Second Appeal was passed in presence of Mr. R.S. Saluja. (2 of 2) [CRW-11/2023] 2. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. vs. V. N. Raju Reddiar & Ors.; AIR 1997 SC 1005 review petition filed by another counsel is not maintainable. 3. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MEHTA),J 47-Arun/-