Research › Search › Judgment
High Court of Rajasthan · body
2025 DAILYLAW 40313 (RAJ)
BARJI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI DHANNALAL v. ASHOK SAINI S/O PAPPULAL SAINI
CR/303/2025 · 2025-10-13
Uma Shanker Vyas
body2025
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40313 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40313 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:41531] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 303/2025 Barji Devi W/o Late Shri Dhannalal, R/o Plot No. 114, Icheshwar Colony, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner/Defendant No.1 Versus
1. Ashok Saini S/o Pappulal Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Plot No.1. 114, Icheshwar Colony, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Pappulal Saini S/o Late Shri Dhanna Lal Saini, R/o Near Nagarpalika, Chaksu District Jaipur. ----Respondent/Defendant No.2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajpal Yogi, Adv. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 13/10/2025 ;kph&izfroknh Øe&1 dh vksj ls ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k Øe&19] t;iqj egkuxj&izFke ¼pkdlw½ }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&146@2025 esa ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 21-08-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh] ftlds ek/;e ls izfroknh Øe&1 dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- [kkfjt fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&izfroknh Øe&1 dh cgl lquh] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA orZeku ekeys esa izR;FkhZ Øe&1&oknh dh vksj ls LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds laca/k esa okn izLrqr dj vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd oknxzLr edku mlds nknk
[2025:RJ-JP:41531] (2 of 2) [CR-303/2025] Lo- /kUukyky th us viuh iRuh Jherh cjth nsoh ds uke ls [kjhn fd;k Fkk] nknk /kUukyky th dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS] bl laifRr esa oknh dk Hkh gd&fgLlk gS] ftlls oknh dks oafpr fd;k tk jgk gSA ;kph&izfroknh Øe&1 dh vksj ls vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds ek/;e ls ;g laifRr LovftZr gksuk crkrs gq, nkok [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Ors. (2024) 11 SCC 503 o Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen & Ors.
(2018) 5 SCC 644 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds vkosnu ij fopkj djrs le; ek= oknh ds vfHkdFkuksa o okni= ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostksa ij gh fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;g laifRr Lo- /kUukyky th us viuh iRuh ds uke ls [kjhnh Fkh vFkok Jherh cjth nsoh iRuh /kUukyky dh LovftZr gS] ;g fookn rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gS] ftldk fopkj.k ds mijkar gh fu.kZ; gks ldrk gSA okn esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij okn vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh-ih-lh- ds rgr ukeatwj gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% vk{ksfir vkns'k iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i gSA ifj.kker% ;kph&izfroknh Øe&1 dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk bl LVst ij [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 21-08-2025 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /03