The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to file documents found during house cleaning. The court held the reasoning below was sound and refused interference as there was no apparent illegality.
Writ petition and stay application dismissed; interim order dated 17.1.2006 vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
SB Civil Writ Petition No. 363/2006
Kishan Singh versus Additional District Judge (FT) Behror & ors 2.4.2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr Suresh Chand Sharma – for petitioner
Mr Dhruv Atri – for respondents
BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 21.12.2005 whereby application moved under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. Learned court considered all the relevant facts pertaining to the application vis-a-vis provisions of the Code. It was found that the documents have to be filed along with the plaint and if it is submitted subsequently, then cogent reasons have to be given for its acceptance by the court. The petitioner moved application for acceptance of documents as they were found while cleaning the house on the occasion of Diwali. Learned court took notice of the documents and found that few documents are not relevant like the notice for land acquisition, revenue suit etc and otherwise found
2
that all those documents were in the knowledge of the petitioner which include stay order passed in an earlier suit filed by the petitioner. If the copy of the interim order was not filed along with the plaint, it cannot be accepted later on the ground taken by the petitioner because all those documents were in the knowledge of the petitioner.
I do not find that the reasoning given by the court below is without basis. Detailed reasons for dismissal of the application have been given and interference in the order cannot be caused by this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless there is apparent illegality in the order.
In view of the above, I do not find any force in the writ petition. Hence, writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed. Interim order dated 17.1.2006 is vacated.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma)
3
PS-cum-JW
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the order of the learned court below rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC.
Whether the documents found during cleaning of the house can be accepted subsequently despite being in the knowledge of the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kishan Singh
Additional District Judge (FT) Behlor and others
MN BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
