Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Prasad vs Om Prakash & Ors on 23 May, 2016
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B.CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.89/2016
in
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2865/2014
Jagdish Prasad
vs.
Om Prakash & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 23/5/2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr.M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Bhavit Sharma, for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT:
This review petition has been filed by the petitioner on 12/5/2016 in respect of the order dated 14/10/2015 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2865/2014, whereby, this Court came to the conclusion that though the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner merely on the ground of delay, the application even on merits does not have any substance so as to require any interference in the order impugned and consequently the writ petition was dismissed.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court while referring to the record of Civil Original Suit nos.36/80 and 46/80 has noticed that on 20/8/1982 the trial court directed that the plaintiffs must get their documents compared and the counsel for the defendants also stated that till such time the documents are compared, the evidence cannot be 2/3 led; whereafter on 17/9/1982 the evidence of plaintiffs' witness Om Prakash started and which was kept reserved and, thereafter, the court has dealt with the application dated 10/3/1995 filed by the respondents under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
It was contended that the above aspect has been noticed by the court as if the same was part of the main suit, however, factually the said order sheet was wrongly recorded in the suit inasmuch as the same pertains to the application filed under Order XL, Rule 1 CPC for appointment of Receiver and, therefore, the order passed by this Court requires review. Further, with reference to several documents and orders, along with copies of the statements recorded, it was sought to be emphasized that the endorsement, which has been noticed by this Court regarding comparison of the Will with the original, is incorrect and baseless and, therefore, the order impugned requires review.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record and further material, which was produced during the course of submissions.
A perusal of the order dated 14/10/2015 passed by this Court would reveal that this Court based on the material available before it including the record of Original Suit Nos. 36/80 and 46/80, came to the conclusion that the objection was raised regarding the documents being not compared and, thereafter, the said documents were got compared and order sheet in this regard was drawn in the suit itself. 3/3
The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the order sheets pertain to misc. proceedings and were wrongly drawn in the suit, does not make out any case for error apparent on face of record, as irrespective of the fact whether the comparison took place for the purpose of misc. application or for the suit, once the documents have been marked as compared, sanctity thereof cannot be questioned merely on the ground as stated.
Further, the writ petition was dismissed not merely on the said aspect and noticing several other facts including the fact that on 10/3/1995, an application under Section 65 of the Act was filed and allowed and the document (Will) was marked as exhibit without any objection on 31/3/1995 and that it was too late in the day to raise the said objection by filing application after almost 18 years, seeking to question petitioner's own conduct.
The rest of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner essentially pertain to the merit of the order passed by this Court, which cannot be the subject matter of review.
In view of the above, no case for error apparent on face of record has been made out, consequently, there is no substance in the review petition and same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
Item no. 32 baweja/-