Smt. Chandabai Jain Vs Narad

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2024:CGHC:37243

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 816 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt. Chandabai Jain W/o Shri Prakashchand Jain Aged About 58 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District- Rajnadngoan ( C.G.). All Thorugh- Power Of Attorney Holder Ritesh Jain S/o Shri Prakashchand Jain Aged 39 Years R/o - Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon

¶7

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.09.24 17:26:32 +0530

¶8

2 - Smt. Sonal Jain W/o Shri Ritesh Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District- Rajnadngoan ( C.G.). All Thorugh- Power Of Attorney Holder Ritesh Jain S/o Shri Prakashchand Jain Aged 39 Years R/o - Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon

¶9

3 - Smt. Chanchal Jain W/o Shri Nilesh Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District- Rajnadngoan ( C.G.). All Thorugh- Power Of Attorney Holder Ritesh Jain S/o Shri Prakashchand Jain Aged 39 Years R/o - Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon ... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Narad S/o Shri Ramratan Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Rampur, Tehsil - Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).

¶12

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh- District- Collector Rajnandgaon.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr. Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate. For State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA.

¶15

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

Order On Board

2 / 6

23.09.2024

This petition has been filed against the order dated 05.08.2024 and 29.08.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.15-A/2021 by the Third District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG).

¶20

On 05.08.2024, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading co-sharer as defendant and application under Order 7 Rule 14 for filing additional document were rejected with cost of Rs.1000/-. On 29.08.2024 application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) r/w Section 151 CPC for taking documents related to Will and agreement on record has been rejected. On the same day, the trial Court also rejected the application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC for adjournment. Thereafter, the trial Court closed the opportunity of plaintiff for adducing evidence. The aforesaid four applications were filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners in the said suit.

¶21

Necessary facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction in respect of subject property against respondent/defendant No.1 – Narad. It is alleged that the suit property is joint property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed an application for impleading co-sharer as a party defendant and further to prove the valid consideration, another application to place on record the document related to bank was filed on 24.07.2024, however, both applications were rejected by the trial Court on 05.08.2024. Thereafter, last opportunity was granted to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence and case has been fixed for hearing 29.08.2024. On the said date, another application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) r/w Section 151 of the CPC for taking the document on record related to agreement dated 27.07.1983 executed before

¶22

3 / 6

¶23

the Village Panch to demonstrate the mutual agreement between the parties and also to take on record Will dated 11.09.2017 executed by Durpati Bai. A ground has been taken that the said documents were obtained from another case bearing Civil Suit No.25-A/2018 pending before Civil Judge, Class-II, Rajnandgaon and both the documents are necessary for adjudication of the case. The plaintiffs have also filed another application for adjournment on the ground that power of attorney holder is suffering from diarrhea and vomiting. However, the trial Court rejected the aforesaid applications observing that eight opportunities have been granted to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are causing delay in trial. Thereafter, the trial Court closed the opportunity to adduce the evidence of the plaintiff. Hence, this petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the aforesaid four applications as trial is at initial stage and only the issues have been framed and evidence has not commenced yet. He submits that defendant himself stated that subject property is joint property, therefore, impleadment of co-sharer is necessary in the suit. He further submits that the suit has been filed for specific performance of agreement to sell and to prove the fact that valid consideration has been made, material document related to bank has been filed. However, the trial Court not considered the same. Similarly another material document related to family partition before Village Panch and important Will have been filed and reasons have been duly assigned for delay that the same were obtained from record of another case and it has been filed immediately after the documents were reached to plaintiffs and that correctness and admissibility of the said documents were not required,

¶25

4 / 6

¶26

however, the trial Court withotut considering the reasons dismissed the said application also. He further submits that a specific plea was made that on 29.08.2024 power of attorney holder of the plaintiff was suffering form illness and therefore he could not attend the court, however, the trial Court has not considered the same and closed the opportunity to adduce the evidence. Learned counsel submits that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the true facts and without appreciating the fact that earlier adjournments have been granted for bonafide reasons. Therefore, harsh step taken by the trial Court in depriving the petitioners to get justice at the initial stage is not sustainable and thus impugned orders are liable to be set-aside.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel prays to allow the aforesaid four applications.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶29

It is well established that the plaintiffs in a suit being dominus litis , may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate. The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell in which a plea has been taken that subject property is joint property and in relation with such fact the plaintiffs have filed documents related to bank, agreement and will to demonstrate that partition had taken place between the family members. Reasons have also been assigned that the said agreement and Will were obtained from another civil suit between members of sellers family. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs moved aforesaid applications including the application for impleading the co-sharer a defendant party. However, the

¶30

5 / 6

¶31

trial Court without considering the fact that the case is at initial stage and that no prejudice would be caused to the other party, rejected the aforesaid applications though the said documents are material bearing to unfold the controversy between the parties.

¶32

Considering the nature of documents and reasons assigned in the applications as well as nature of the suit, applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/-. Further, application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC and another application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) r/w Section 151 CPC are allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/-.

¶33

Since reasons have been assigned in the adjournment application that power of attorney holder of the plaintiff was suffering from illness, therefore, the trial Court shall grant one more opportunity of adjournment to the plaintiffs subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/-.

¶34

Accordingly, the aforesaid four applications preferred by the plaintiff are allowed. The plaintiff shall pay aforesaid cost of Rs.6000/-, in addition to the cost earlier imposed by the trial Court, to the defendant No.1 through his lawyer within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, this order shall lose its efficacy.

¶35

Upon deposit of such cost, the trial Court shall issue direction to take on record the documents related to bank, agreement and Will in view applications preferred by the plaintiff and shall also allow the plaintiffs to implead the co-sharer as a party in view of application under Order 1 Rule 10.

¶36

6 / 6

¶37

The trial Court shall grant opportunity of rebuttal to other side if they desires and thereafter shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶38

It is also made clear that no adjournment normally shall be granted to any of party unless exigency is beyond their control and adjournment shall only be granted after showing reasonable cause and its proof.

¶39

For the foregoing, the impugned orders in respect of rejection of four applications are set-aside. However, cost imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶40

The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶43

Ajay

Smt. Chandabai Jain v. Narad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandabai Jain v. Narad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhasketan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Saraswati Shishu Mandir Vs Smt. Vrindavati Yadav

Smt. Rangulia Vs Devendra Prasad Gupta

Pintu Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Kumar Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Prakash Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited