GIRDHARI LAL v. ASSTT COMMISQSIONERSDODEVSTHAN JPR
CSA/241/2014 · 2025-07-31
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5158 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5158 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:29075] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 241/2014 Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Daulatram House No. 40, Opp. Shikha Public School, Near Beniwal Kante, Krashna Colony, Old Ramgarh Mode, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus
1. Assistant Commissioner Sub District Officer, Devasthan Department, Jaipur Division Hawamahal Road, Jaipur
2. Superintendent, Hawamahal Architect Department, Near Hawamahal, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Mall, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 31/07/2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff as well as counsel for the respondents-defendants. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that the appellant-plaintiff filed a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants i.e. Devasthan Department & Archaeological Department. The trial Court while dismissing the suit and the appellate court while dismissing the appeal noted that the appellant-plaintiff in his evidence mentioned that his shop did not have any concerned with Archaeological Department. It was also noted that no cause of action accrued to the appellant-plaintiff as against respondent-defendant No.1 for the reason that the appellant-
[2025:RJ-JP:29075] (2 of 2) [CSA-241/2014] plaintiff did not aver that the respondent-defendant No.1 threatened him to demolish the shop in question. On account of misjoinder of the necessary parties, the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff is disposed of with liberty to the appellant-plaintiff to file the fresh suit, if occasion so arises. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/25