Ramesh Singhal And Ors vs Smt. Sushma And Ors

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') by which the petitioners' application dated 26.04.2017 filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

The facts apropos the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein, had instituted a suit for permanent injunction and partition. Pursuant to the suit so filed, the petitioners-defendants had filed a written statement and a counter claim.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court on 28.07.2014 framed the following issues :

"01. आया वाद के पैरा संख्या 2 में वर्णित चतुर्थ सीमाओं वाली विवादित जायदाद गिरधर निवास पक्षकार वादीनी व प्रतिवादीगण की संयुक्त स्वामित्व व आधिपत्य की अविभाजित जायदाद है इसमें वादीनी का 1/3 हिस्सा है?

........ वादीनी

आया प्रतिवादी विवादित जायदाद का बंटवाडा कर तथा वादीनी को 1/3 हिस्सा देने से इन्कार कर रहे है?

....... वादीनी

आया प्रतिवादीगण विवादित जायदाद से वादीनी को बेदखल करने व उसके हक अधिकार से वंचित करने पर आमादा है जिसका उन्हें कोई अधिकार नहीं है?

....... वादीनी

आया प्रतिवादीगण संख्या 1 व 2 काउण्टर क्लेम के पैरा संख्या 1 में वर्णित जायदाद को विभाजन करवाकर हक हिस्सा प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है?

......... प्रतिवादी संख्या 1 एवं 2

आया प्रतिवादी संख्या 4 एवं 5 ने विवादित जायादाद में अपना हक हिस्सा प्रतिवादी संख्या 2 के हक में तर्क कर दिया है?

......... प्रतिवादी संख्या 1 एवं 2

अनुतोष ?"

After framing of the issues, an application dated 26.04.2017 came to be filed by the defendants No.1 & 2-the petitioners herein, interalia contending that the issues framed by the Court need to be reframed inasmuch as there is clear admission by the plaintiff in para No.7 of the plaint that she had permitted the defendants to raise construction on the disputed property. Qua issue No.4, it was contended that not only the plaintiffs even the defendants had agreed that the property in question needs to be partitioned as such there was no requirement of the framing of the issue No.4.

While seeking deletion of issues No.3 & 4, Mr. Maloo contended that remaining issues framed by the trial Court are not sufficient to adjudicate the question and dispute existing between the parties.

Mr. Maloo took the Court through the pleadings of the parties to satisfy that the issues proposed by him vide his application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure deserves to framed.

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly agrees that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the order dated 29.08.2017 and rejecting the petitioners' application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing of the additional issues and deleting some of them.

Having perused the material available on record, the pleadings of the parties and application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 26.04.2017 filed by the petitioners and in view of the consent of learned counsel for the respondents, the application is allowed. Trial Court is directed to frame the following issues :

आया जवाबदावे के पद सं. 10 में वर्णित तथ्यों अनुसार वादिनी द्वारा आंशिक सम्पतियों के बंटवाडा बाबत प्रस्तुत यह वाद काबिल निरस्त के है।

आया वादिनी ने वादग्रस्त जायदाद के अपने कथित स्वामित्व हक अधिकारों बाबत घोषणा व कब्जा प्राप्ति का विधिवत वाद प्रस्तुत किये, और इस बाबत अनुतोष चाहे बगैर, जिस स्वरूप में केवल निषेधाज्ञा का यह वाद पेश किया है, वह काबिल निरस्त के है।

आया वादिनी द्वारा पर्याप्त कोर्ट फीस अदा की गयी है।

As regards issues No.3 & 4, it is held that they are unnecessary as the contentions in this regard have already been admitted by the parties in their pleadings and all the parties are ad idem that the property deserves to be partitioned.

The writ petition stands allowed, as indicated above.