Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satya Narayan vs Smt. Ghisee Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2013
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4780/13
Satya Narayan Vs. Smt. Ghisee Devi & Ors.
Date of order : 4th July, 2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr. R.S. Choudhary for petitioner.
------
The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. for producing certain documents on record was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial court has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. for taking certain documents on record without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner came to know about the existence of the said documents 2 only on 14.9.2012 and immediately on 21.9.2012, he moved an application for taking the said documents on record. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents sought to be taken on recored by the petitioner are important documents and if the same are not allowed to be taken on record, the case of the petitioner will be prejudiced.
This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.
The learned trial court while considering the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner has observed that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 12.6.1987 in the year 2004 and after availing several opportunities, the petitioner-plaintiff produced his evidence and thereafter evidence of the respondent-defendant has also been completed 3 and the case is at the stage of final arguments from 27.9.2012.
It is also observed by learned trial court that the parties have sought several adjournments for arguing the case finally and when the last opportunity was granted to the petitioner-plaintiff for finally arguing the case, the said application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner only with intention to delay the matter.
The learned trial court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has concluded that the petitioner- plaintiff has obtained the expert opinion after 8 years of filing of the suit and if the expert opinion and other documents are taken on record, it may lead to several unnecessary complications. It is also observed by the learned trial court that the petitioner has already produced all his evidence to prove his case and has failed to show any cogent reason that he was not able to produce the expert opinion at the 4 time of filing of the suit itself.
After going through the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., reply of the defendants and the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. for producing certain documents at a very belated stage when the case was ripe for final arguments.
In view of the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
[ VIJAY BISHNOI ], J.
babulal/ 26