TIKKIWAL SOCIETY JAIPUR v. BHAWANI SHANKAR TIKKIWAL SON OF SHRI BHONRILAL JI TIKKIWAL
CW/18052/2025 · 2025-11-25
Bipin Gupta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 46169 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 46169 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:47662] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18052/2025 Tikkiwal Society Jaipur, Through President Shri Suresh Chandra Tikkiwal Son Of Late Shri Muneem Chand Office 449, Murli Manohar Ji Ka Mandir, Rasta Tikkiwalan, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur. ---Defendant-Petitioner Versus
1. Bhawani Shankar Tikkiwal Son Of Shri Bhonrilal Ji Tikkiwal,
Major
Deceased
Through
Legal Representatives:- - 1/1. Smt. Vidya Devi Tikkiwal W/o Late Shri Bhawani Shankar Tikkiwal, aged about 87 years. 1/2. Shri Uma Shankar Tikkiwal, S/o Late Shri Bhawani Shankar Tikkiwal, aged about 68 year. Residents House no.394-54, Aakdo Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Choukar Topkhana Desh, Jaipur- …….Plaintiff-Respondent
2. Shri Suresh Chandra Tikkiwal Son Of Shri Muneem Chand Tikkiwal, Resident Of House No. 438, Tikkiwalon Ka Chowk, Rasta Tikkiwalan, Kishanpole Bazar, Choukari Topkhana Desh, Jaipur.
3. Shri Tarachand Tikkiwal Son Of Late Shri Prahlad Kishan Tikkiwal, Major Socalled Mantri Tikkiwal Society, Resident Of B19, Shiv Marg, Banipark, Jaipuir. …….Defendants-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order 25/11/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned trial Court on the application of the petitioner filed under Section 151 of CPC dated
[2025:RJ-JP:47662] (2 of 3) [CW-18052/2025] 30.08.2025, whereby the said application has been rendered infructuous on account of the fact that an order has already been passed on the same date in the application of the respondent dated 10.09.2025 which was filed under Section 152 CPC.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court could not have allowed the respondent to re-argue the application. Once the applications was already decided by the trial Court vide order dated 05.10.2024. There is no review power with the learned trial Court to review its order dated 05.10.2024 and by permitting the respondent to re-argue the application, the learned court below has committed illegality. He thus prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 17.10.2025 on the application of the petitioner dated 30.08.2025 be set aside and the application of the petitioner may be allowed.
3. Heard. Considered.
4. This Court finds that the learned trial Court on 17.10.2025 had decided two applications, one application of the petitioner filed under Section 151 CPC dated 30.08.2025 and another application of respondent under Section 152 CPC dated 10.09.2025..
5. The application under Section 152 CPC was allowed in favour of the respondent and the learned trial Court considering the fact that in the order dated 05.10.2024 one of the applications dated 26.07.2024 filed by the respondent was not decided as there was no reasons recorded by the trial Court in the order dated
05.10.2024. Considering the same permitted the respondent to argue the application dated 26.07.2024. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 17.10.2025 passed on the application dated 10.09.2025 under Section 152 of
[2025:RJ-JP:47662] (3 of 3) [CW-18052/2025] CPC. Therefore, since the order impugned herein has been passed on the basis of the order passed on the application dated 10.09.2025, therefore, without challenge to that order nothing remained in the application of the petitioner to be decided and the same has been rightly rendered infructuous.
6. This court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned passed by the trial Court. Further, this Court finds that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties as liberty to argue the application dated 26.07.2024 has been given to both parties.
7. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the order impugned passed by the trial Court so as to call for any interference in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J Prashant/Sudha/27