AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Srivastava, J.—By an order dated 2112004, trial Court directed to appoint Amin Commissioner to prepare map of the property in question. An application to recall the order dated 2112004 was rejected by the impugned order dated 1022004 passed by trial Court. A revision No. 48 of 2004 preferred against the said order was dismissed on 1132004.
Learned Counsel for petitioners urged that in the application dated 2812004 petitioner has made two prayers (1) To recall the order dated 2112004 and (2) To stay the proceedings under Section 10 of CPC. The Courts below erred in law in dismissing the application without considering matter under Section 10 of CPC.
After having heard learned Counsel for petitioners and considering the materials on record, I am of the view that the impugned orders were rightly passed in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and petitioners are not prejudiced by the impugned order appointing Commissioner. There is no error of law apparent on the face of record. Court below also rightly directed to file separate application under Section 10 of CPC, if so advised.
Under General Rule Civil paragraph 28 clearly mentions that separate application shall be made in regard to distinct subjectmatters :
�(28) Separate applications for distinct subjectmattersSeparate application shall be made in regard to distinct subjectmatters.
Applications containing argumentative matters to be returned. No application containing argumentative matter, e.g. quotations and discussions of the effect of certain sections of Acts or of certain rulings of the High Court, shall be placed on record. They shall be returned to applicants without any order, except an endorsement that the application is returned under this rule.�
Petitioners'' application by which two distinct prayers were made, firstly, to recall the order dated 2112004 and secondly, to stay the suit under Section 10 of CPC was not maintainable and the trial Court rightly considered the prayer No. 1 on merit and rejected the application. As directed, it is still open to petitioners to move fresh application under Section 10 of CPC, if so advised. No ground is made out for interference.
Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.