MRIGENDRA SINGH Vs. SOHAN RAJ SURANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE is present on behalf of appellant/plaintiff, though names of Mr. Arpit Bhoot, Mr. Surendra Singh, and Ms. Mehak Chopra have been shown in the cause list at Serial No. 48, and despite message sent to them nobody put in appearance on behalf of plaintiff/appellant though Mr. Surendra Singh had appeared in a case before this Court today in the case listed at Serial No. 16 only. The matter was thus heard from the side of the respondents for about one hour before lunch break. Even in the second round post lunch session, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of appellant/plaintiff to argue the case, therefore, the case was again heard after lunch break and learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and applicant addressed the Court and the present appeal is being disposed of by the following order.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 01.10.2012, learned trial court of Additional District Judge (FT) No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, has allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and dismissed the Suit No. 14/2002 - Mrigendra Singh v. Sohan Raj Surana & Ors. The reasons and findings recorded by the learned trial court for rejection of the suit, allowing such application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are quoted herein below ready reference: - -

(3.) HE also drew the attention of the Court towards the judgment rendered by this Court in SBCWP No. 3881/2011 -Shreyansh Daga v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. on 17.07.2013, which petitioner, Shreyansh Daga (Respondent No. 3 herein) had laid a challenge to a notice/communication dated 20.04.2011 on the representation of son of the present petitioner, viz. Jorawar Singh S/o Mrigendra Singh, a minor by which some proceedings under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, were sought to be initiated at the instance of the Revenue Minister against the petitioner and the petitioner in that writ petition being the purchaser of the part of the land in the present case also had challenged those proceedings and while allowing the writ petition on 17.07.2013, this Court had noticed the fact relating to this case in the following manner: - -