ANIL KUMAR BHANSALI Vs. ANAND KUMAR BHANSALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against order dtd. 24/7/2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 65/2022 (NCV No.131/2022) whereby three different applications as filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on behalf of the petitioners-defendants no.1 and 2 have been rejected.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.1-plaintiff to the effect that one revision petition challenging an order whereby three different applications have been decided is not maintainable and three revision petitions ought to have been filed as vide the order impugned, three different applications have been decided.

(3.) So far as the above preliminary objection is concerned, the same cannot be sustained for the peculiar facts and manner in which the order impugned has been passed. Vide the order impugned, learned Judge has proceeded on to decide the first application in paras No.1 to 10 of the order impugned and has even put his signature after para No.10. But then, the learned Judge has proceeded on to decide the second application in para No.11 to 20 of the order impugned and has again put his signature after para No.20. Interestingly, the same manner has been adopted for deciding the remaining two applications also. Meaning thereby, without passing separate order for each application, the learned Judge has passed one common order segregating them into different paragraphs. In the specific opinion of this Court, the alleged separate orders segregated in different paragraphs in a common order cannot be said to be the independent orders. No party can be directed to challenge certain paragraphs of an order in one petition and the other paragraphs in a different petition. Just putting signatures at the end of certain paragraphs would not make the same an independent/separate order. The complete order has to be read as a whole and cannot be treated to be four separate orders. The said logic is also substantiated by the fact that even on behalf of the respondent no.1-plaintiff, a single caveat has been filed qua the present petition. Had the respondent no.1-plaintiff treated the order impugned to be four separate orders, four different caveats qua each of them would have been filed. Therefore, in the peculiar manner in which the order impugned has been passed, it could not have been expected from the petitioners to file separate revision petitions qua the alleged separate orders. The objection as raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 hence being not tenable, is rejected.