Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kaluram And Ors vs Addi District Judge Ors on 21 November, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15262/2011 S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 13967/2011 Kaluram (since deceased) through his LRs. V/s. Additional District Judge, No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order : 21st November, 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, for the petitioner
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 6th September, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC before the Appellate Court imploring to take the receipts of rent pertaining to the year 1980 on record. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the application on the ground that the case of the petitioner did not fall within the ambit Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. He ought to have produced these receipts before the learned trial court but he failed to convince the court, as to how his case was covered by the provisions of Rule 27 of CPC.
3. Otherwise too, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in plethora of cases has consistently held that the High Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution only when the impugned order is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the High Court should escape from interfering with the finding of facts of court below. The impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case is not found to be perverse. E converso, the learned appellate court is found to have discussed the facts and circumstances put forth by the petitioner ad-longum and observed that the receipts sought to be produced were not circumscribed by limitations specified in Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC. The impugned order seems to be just and proper and suffers from no legal infirmity. Hence, in the light of the afore-stated reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same stands dismissed accordingly.
4. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI), J.
Mak/-
11 S.B. CWP No. 15262/2011 1