Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar vs Sambhu Singh on 11 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 RAJ 124
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14080/2017
Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Parasmalji Jain, R/o Asha Enterprises Ashok
Nagar Bhilwara Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
Sambhu Singh S/o Mangilal, B/c Tak, R/o 324 R.k. Colony
Bhilwara Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Mahesh Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr B.S. Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Judgment 11/02/2019 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (West), Bhilwara {to be referred as 'the trial court'} in Civil Suit No.17/2010, whereby an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 7 rule 14 CPC was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent before the trial court. Issues were framed by the trial court on 25.03.2014 and thereafter evidence of petitioner-plaintiff completed on 06.07.2016. After completion of the evidence of petitioner- plaintiff, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 CPC for bringing certain documents on record, which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 13.07.2017.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has wrongly rejected the application submitted by the petitioner-
(2 of 3) [CW-14080/2017] plaintiff as the documents in question are Government documents and the same are very much necessary to decide the controversy involved in the suit. Counsel further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate relevance of the documents with the matter and wrongly rejected the application. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner relied on 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj) 1373: Ratan Kumari vs Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur & others; 2011(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 760 (P&H): Mahinder Singh vs A.C.I.G. Ballabgarh & ors.; 2016 (4) CIVIL COURT CASES 733 (Delhi): Abdul Mueed & ors vs. Hammad Ahmed & ors.
Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly held that the documents are not necessary to decide the present controversy. In support of his contentions, the counsel for respondent relied on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bagai Constrution through its proprietor Mr Lalit Bagai vs M/s Gupta Building Material Store (Civil Appeal No.1787/2013, decided on 22.02.2013) and judgments passed by this Court in Abdul Hameed vs Municipal Board, Nagaur & ors. (SBCWP No.5463/2009, decided on 13.09.2012); Sahi Ram vs Bhanwari Devi (SBCWP No.4891/2016, decided on 16.12.2016); Radhey Shyam & anr vs Mahavir Prasad & ors. (SBCWP No.4889/2010, decided on 19.04.2010); Narayan Lal vs Mangi Lal & ors. (SBCWP No.3422/2013, decided on 04.07.2013); 2017(4) CDR 2061 (Raj.): Smt Mithu Devi & anr vs Smt Indubala @ Sheela & ors.
(3 of 3) [CW-14080/2017] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons, firstly- the petitioner has filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant with the prayer that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner- plaintiff without due process of law and in my considered view, the documents in question relate to patta issued by the Municipal Board in favour of the defendant and the same is not relevant to decide the suit controversy. Secondly, the petitioner has obtained documents on 18th February 2016 when evidence of the petitioner was continuing before the learned trial court, however, the petitioner-plaintiff failed to submit any application before the trial court prior to completion of his evidence. Thirdly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in the matter.
Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J 143-MMA/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)