Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Manish Kumar Son Of Shri Ramesh Chand vs Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Shri Ramesh ... on 11 April, 2022

Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur

Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21958/2019

Manish Kumar Son Of Shri Ramesh Chand, Resident Of House
No.   179,    Brahampuri       Chota       Akhada        Near     Power   House,
Brahampuri, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Shri Ramesh Chand, Resident Of
        House No. 179, Brahampuri Chota Akhada Near Power
        House, Brahampuri (Died During Trial) Jaipur.
2.      Ramesh Chand Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal, Resident Of
        House No. 179, Brahampuri, Chota Akhada, Near Power
        House, Brahampuri, Jaipur.
3.      Dinesh Kumar Son Of Shri Ramesh Chand, Resident Of
        House No. 179, Brahampuri, Chota Akhada, Near Power
        House, Brahampuri, Jaipur.
4.      Banita Wife Of Shri Yogesh Jaiswal Daughter Of Shri
        Ramesh Chand, Resident Of House No. 138, D Block,
        Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Senior Advocate
                                assisted by Mr. Rajat Ranjan and
                                Mr. Devashish Pancholi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Rahul Kamwar with
                                Mr. Deep Soni



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

                                     Order

11/04/2022

      This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner

challenging    the    orders        dated        26.11.2019        (Annexure-3),

02.12.2019 (Annexure-9) and 10.12.2019 (Annexure-12). The

petitioner has further prayed that a direction may be given to

allow the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule


                     (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:19:00 PM)
                                             (2 of 4)                   [CW-21958/2019]



14(3) CPC and permission be also granted to cross-examine the

defendant's witnesses including DW-2 Ramesh Chand.

       Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has filed

a   suit   for   partition    and      permanent          injunction    against    the

respondents. Counsel submitted that defendant-respondent Shanti

Devi had earlier filed a suit for possession and the said suit was

decreed in favour of defendant-respondent. Counsel submitted

that   during    cross-examination            of    said     defendant-respondent

Shanti Devi, she had made certain admissions and as such

petitioner by filing application under Order 7 Rule 14 wanted to

bring on record the documents which were relevant for deciding

suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

       Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court

towards the cross-examination of defendant-respondent which has

been filed as Annexure-8 with the petition and counsel submitted

that there has been admission on the part of the defendant-

respondent that the property in question i.e. house was purchased

by her and she had denied that house in question was an

ancestral house.

       Counsel    for   the     petitioner         further     submitted    that   the

application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was

only for the purpose of producing certain documents which could

not be filed along with the plaint. Counsel submitted that due

explanation was given of filing such documents at belated stage

and Court has refused to exercise its discretion, while deciding the

application filed by the petitioner.

       Counsel further submitted that by the impugned order dated

26.11.2019, the petitioner has been denied opportunity to cross-

examine the witness and the ground on which said application has

                        (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:19:00 PM)
                                        (3 of 4)                [CW-21958/2019]



been dismissed is allegedly delay caused by the petitioner in

pursuing his case and not cross-examining the witness of the

defendant-respondent.

     Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no prejudice would

be caused to the defendant-respondent if the application filed by

the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is allowed. Counsel

further submitted that the right available to the petitioner to

cross-examine the witness, cannot be denied by the Court below

and in the interest of justice, this Court may set aside the orders

and permit the petitioner to place documents on record and

further give opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

     Mr. Rahul Kamwar, learned counsel appearing for the

defendant-respondent submitted that in this case initially an order

was passed by this Court on 06.01.2020 whereby the Court below

was directed not to pass final order. Counsel for the respondent

submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the evidence of the defendant-respondent has already been concluded and only judgment is to be pronounced. Counsel for the defendant- respondent further submitted that in this case the evidence of the petitioner was concluded in the year 2019 itself and after giving several opportunities when the evidence of the defendant was to be produced, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to cross- examine the witness and as such the Court below has rightly refused to give permission to petitioner to cross-examine the defendant's witness.

Counsel further submitted that documents which the petitioner intends to place on record are in his possession and so far cross-examination of defendant-Shanti Devi had also taken place somewhere in the year 2010 and petitioner ought to have (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:19:00 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-21958/2019] produced such documents along with the plaint and if he has not filed the same, the permission may not be granted by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court finds that the Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. This Court finds that the Court below has assigned reasons of causing delay as petitioner failed to produce the documents cross-examination of defendant-respondent which said to have taken place in 2010. This Court further finds that right to cross-examine the witness has rightly been denied as petitioner in spite of taking an opportunity at the cost of Rs.1,000/- on the particular date, did not cross-examine the witness. This Court finds that no interference is required in the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

The decision rendered by this Court will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner for availing any right which is available under the law.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J N.Gandhi/44 (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:19:00 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)