AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is no ground for interfering with the order impugned particularly since the previous order, of which recall was sought, had been passed after
considering all circumstances. Moreover, when an application in the nature of review is filed and the same is declined, unless an extreme case of
prejudice is made out, such order declining to review the original order does not ordinarily call for any interference.
Two grounds have been urged in the appeal. It is submitted that the obesity of the appellant does not permit her to conveniently drive a WagonR and,
in such circumstances, Advocate appearing for the appellant herein should not have consented to the keys of the Scorpio car being made over to one
of the respondents herein. The other ground urged is that the Scorpio car is the subject-matter of a title suit and the pendency of such title suit was
suppressed in the writ petition.
The order impugned clearly records that the pendency of the title suit pertaining to the Scorpio car had been taken into account and the order for
handing over the keys of the Scorpio car was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending suit. As to the other
aspect, it is apparent that the writ court perceived it to be an afterthought.
However, at the request of the appellant, the first respondent is restrained from transferring the Scorpio car in favour of any third party without the
previous leave of the writ court.
MAT 728 of 2019 together with CAN 11345 of 2019 stand dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.