Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Order 04/04/2024

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the validity of the orders passed by Additional District Judge, Rajsamand ('Trial Court'), whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application(s) preferred by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) and Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC. Since, the controversy involved in this batch of writ petition is common, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order, however, facts of SBCWP No.2687/2024 are taken into consideration illustratively.

4. Both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case.

5. After hearing the parties, the Estate Officer vide its order dated 20.04.2019 (Annex.1) proceeded to allow the application filed by the respondent- Trust and directed eviction of the petitioners from the suit shop in question. The petitioners were also directed to pay due rent and mesne profit.

6. Being aggrieved by order dated 20.04.2019 (Annex.1), the petitioners preferred appeal before the District Judge, Rajsamand, which is pending adjudication before the appellate court.

7. During pendency of the appeal before the District Judge, Rajsamand, the petitioners preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 11 Rule 12 CPC on 03.10.2019 seeking to place on record copy of Bapi Patta dated 02.02.1925 (Samvat Year 1981) alongwith map, which were in the power and possession of the Temple Board, which were prayed to be summoned from the Temple Board.

[2024:RJ-JD:15053] (8 of 13) [CW-2687/2024]

8. A reply to the said application was filed by the respondent Temple Board while pleading that the documents sought to be summoned were not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal and a prayer for dismissing the said application was made.