Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Subhash Chandra vs Smt. Pushpa Devi on 6 May, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 RAJ 261
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16336/ 2018
1. Subhash Chandra s/o Shri Debilal Birla, aged about 50 years,
r/o Mandal, at present residing at H-141, Azad Nagar, Behind
Maheshwari Bhawan, Bhilwara.
2. Rajkumar Birla s/o Shri Debilal Birla, aged about 45 years, r/o
Mandal, at present residing at H-141, Azad Nagar, Behind
Maheshwari Bhawan, Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Pushpa Devi w/o Bhupendra Ji Kothari, aged about 55 years,
r/o A-21, Near Prakash Lighting, Laxmi Nagar, Near Shyam Vihar,
Bhilwara
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Suresh Shrimali & Mr. Rishabh Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.N. Kalla
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 24/04/2019 Pronounced on 06/05/2019
1. This writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout and the impugned order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Civil Suit No.135/2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC may kindly be ordered to be allowed.(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:55:29 AM)
(2 of 8) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."
2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act on 29.10.2011 on account of the claim that the defendant had illegally encroached upon the property in question on 21.10.2011. In the said suit, it was claimed that Araji No.2502, Rakba 1, 1 Bigha 1 Biswa was situated in Bhilwara, and Renu Devi, who was the widow of Devilal Jat, and was khatedar, had transferred the said land to one Ghisulal. The said Ghisulal carved out 18 plots, out of which one plot bearing No.15 measuring 25 x 40 ft. was sold to Jaan Kanwar, and Jaan Kanwar thereafter sold the same to the present plaintiffs/petitioners.
3. The plaintiffs-petitioners further claimed that on 08.02.2002, the plot in question was regularized by the UIT, while giving Plot No.44 in place of the old Plot No.15. In the suit, it was also claimed by the plaintiffs-petitioners that Plot No.16, as carved out by Ghisulal, was transferred to Shakuntala Devi, and Shakuntala Devi had transferred it to one Neetu Devi, and while making regularization, a new Plot No.43 instead Plot No.16, was given by the UIT. Neetu Devi then sold the said plot to one Jagdish Kumar.
4. The respondent-defendant filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the suit, and stated that one (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:55:29 AM) (3 of 8) Chandra Prakash had purchased the land from khatedar of Araji No.2502, and from Chandra Prakash, the defendant had purchased the same. In the written statement, the defendant- respondent further claimed that she was owner of Plot No.86, which was subsequently given to Neelu Devi, and a patta was issued by the UIT in her favour. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a rejoinder, and thereafter, issues were framed by the learned court below.
5. The plaintiffs-petitioners thereafter, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking to produce certain documents, and the respondent-defendant also filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC seeking production of certain documents. Both the applications were allowed by the learned court below on 14.01.2015.
6. The defendant-respondent thereafter, filed another application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, which was also allowed by the learned court below on 12.10.2015, while framing the additional issues.
7. The defendant-respondent raised certain objections regarding certain documents sought to be produced by the plaintiffs/petitioners, which were also accepted by the learned court below vide order dated 10.05.2016. Thereafter, on 26.09.2017, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed another application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking to produce certified copies of the documents, regarding which the defendant-respondent had earlier raised an objection. The said application of the plaintiffs- (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:55:29 AM)
(4 of 8) petitioners was also allowed by the learned court below on 10.11.2016.
8. The plaintiffs-petitioners thereafter, on 18.11.2016 and 19.11.2016 had filed yet another application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC before the statements of the plaintiff-petitioners were completed. The said application was also allowed by the learned court below on 05.01.2017.
9. The evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners was completed on 17.03.2017 and the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence on 03.04.2017. Thereafter, instead of rendering evidence, the defendant had filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC seeking to produce some more documents, which too was allowed by the learned court below on 11.05.2017.
10. Thereafter, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed another application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC on 01.05.2018 and sought to produce certain revenue records, i.e. jamabandi and mutation proceedings. In the said application, the plaintiffs/petitioners also claimed in the application that the defendant had produced a Commissioner's Report regarding suit No.24/2003 (Pushpa Devi Vs. Neetu Devi & Ors.). The jamabandi and the mutation proceedings were taken on record by the learned court below on 11.05.2017.
11. The aforementioned application of the plaintiffs- petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was partly allowed by the learned court below vide the impugned order 18.07.2018, and the revenue records were taken on record. However, the documents, (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:55:29 AM) (5 of 8) which were sought to be produced, i.e. certified copies which were in respect of the suit filed by defendant-Pushpa Devi against Neetu Devi, certified copy of the written statement of Neetu Devi, certified copy of reply to the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and the documents in regard to the electricity department were declined to be taken on record on the ground that the said documents produced by the plaintiffs-petitioners were not relevant.
12. On 29.08.2018, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking to produce certain documents, which includes the certified copy of the judgment dated 17.02.2018 and the Commissioner's Report dated 14.11.1994. However, the said application was rejected by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2018.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that relevance of the documents had to be seen, whereas, the learned court below had rejected the application only on the ground that the plaintiffs-petitioners had an opportunity to produce the documents, but they have failed to do so.
14. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the precedent law laid down by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Shrawan Kumar Vs. Tej Karan, reported in 2017(2) WLC (Raj.) 411, relevant para 14 of which reads as under:-
"14. The suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is for declaration of he being an adopted son of Late Shri Suraj (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:55:29 AM) (6 of 8) Mal and for decree of permanent injunction. An affidavit of Late Shri Suraj Mal dated 04-06-1999 was produced by the defendant-respondent after completion of plaintiff's evidence. Contention of petitioner is that the affidavit is not signed by Late Shri Suraj Mal, as such it is a forged and fabricated document. The petitioner filed the documents mentioned at serial Nos. 6 & 7 pertaining to Samvat 2028 and year 1982 respectively, bearing signatures of Late Shri Suraj Mal, for comparison of alleged signatures of Suraj Mal on affidavit dated 04-06- 1999. Documents mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5, though not signed by anyone, are also relevant to the dispute between the parties and the matter in issue, to be decided by the learned trial court. The endeavour should be to do real justice between the parties, rather than to dismiss any application on technical grounds. The courts may award cost to the opposite party for the inconvenience, if any, caused to him due to late filing of an application but should not dismiss the application only on the ground of delay, if the documents are relevant to the controversy between the parties and no limitation is prescribed for filing of an application.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Daljit Singh & Ors.
Vs. Addl. Distt. Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur & Ors., reported in 2013(4) DNJ (Raj.)1631, relevant para 18 of which reads as under:-
"18. The learned trial court has denied to take the said documents on record simply while saying that the documents pertain to the year 1983 and if the said documents are in any way beneficial for respondent defendants, they should have produced the same earlier. If the documents are relevant and the parties have shown sufficient cause for not producing the same at earlier stage, the approach of the Courts should be pragmatic (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:55:29 AM) (7 of 8) rather than rigid. The Court should exercise with the discretion vested with it to do further justice as all the rules and procedure being meant for administration of justice and too technical views should not be taken. When relevancy of the documents for the purpose of adjudication of controversy is established and the only objection remains regarding admissibility of the said documents, the courts should exercise the discretion liberally."
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is justified.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Satya Narayan Vs. Smt. Ghisee Devi & Ors., reported in 2013(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1499, relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"After going through the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, reply of the defendants and the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for producing certain documents at a very belated stage when the case was ripe for final arguments."
18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the plaintiffs-petitioners had earlier moved applications under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC on 19.10.2013, 26.09.2016, 18.11.2016, 19.11.2016 and 01.05.2018. This Court also finds that there is no doubt that the if the plaintiffs-petitioners finds the documents to be relevant, then they could have asked for the same to be taken on record under (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:55:29 AM) (8 of 8) Order 7 Rule 14 CPC at an earlier point of time, but they do not have any explanation as to why the judgment dated 17.02.2018 and the report dated 14.11.1994 were not sought to be taken on record on the previous occasions.
19. This Court further finds that the last document sought to be brought on record was dated 17.02.2018, whereas the last application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was dated 01.05.2018, and if the petitioners wanted such documents to be taken on record, such application would have included the same documents on the previous occasions.
20. It is settled proposition that a person may have a right to bring certain documents on record, but once such right is exercised five times and inspite of the same, the plaintiffs/petitioners have failed to bring such documents dated 17.02.2018 and 14.11.1994 on record, the present application apparently looks nothing, but a tool to delay the proceedings.
21. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
22. In view of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order is well reasoned and does not call for any interference.
23. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. Stay Application No.16302/2018 also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:55:29 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)