Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Hameed vs Municipal Board, Nagaur & Ors on 13 September, 2012
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5463/2009 (Abdul Hammed Vs. Municipal Board & Ors.) Date of Order :: 13.09.2012 PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the petitioner.
Mr. Bheem Arora, for respondents.
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the order dated 21.05.2009 (Annex.6) passed by Civil Judge (JD), Nagaur whereby the application filed by the plaintiff petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is illegal because the photostat copies submitted by the petitioner along with the application are very much relevant to decide the controversy involved in the case. It is also pointed out that those documents were not produced during trial because earlier counsel of petitioner Mr. Ram Kishore did not file those documents in the Court and later on when this fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff petitioner then an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC for taking those documents on record but trial Court rejected the said application without considering the question of relevancy of those documents, therefore, order impugned deserves to be quashed. 2
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently argued that bare perusal of the order impugned will reveal that filing of application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC by the plaintiff petitioner is abuse of process of Court because after taking time for filing arguments after completion of trial, the said application was filed with a prayer that some photostat copies may be taken on record which were not filed earlier due to mistake of his earlier counsel Mr. Ram Kishore. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the conduct of the plaintiff petitioner and rejected the application in which a prayer was made to take certain photostat copies on record in the case. Therefore, no case is made out for interference and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. Upon perusal of the order impugned, it is revealed that suit was filed in the year 2005 and evidence of both the sides was recorded by the trial Court, thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments and petitioner took sometime to argue the matter but instead of arguing the matter, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC along with certain photostat copies of some documents without disclosing the relevancy of those documents. The trial Court gave clear cut finding that the instant application has been filed only to delay the final adjudication of the case because no affidavit of earlier counsel Mr. Ram Kishore has been filed nor it is disclosed in the application why these photostat copies of documents were not filed for four years during trial, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is not required to be 3 accepted and while observing above facts, trial Court rejected the application upon cost of Rs.500/-. In my opinion, the order impugned does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality, more so, the order impugned is justified upon the facts which are not in dispute. Therefore, interference upon facts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible in view of para-meters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.
arun