Dismissed

Nand Kishore Pareek and Ors. v. Moti Lal Jat and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Dec 2017CW/22641/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the High Court called upon to examine the exercise of the trial court had been dismissed the petitioner's appeal the Addition of the evidence of inspection other courts no warrant for your interference under the order of the Additional District Judge, Jaipur. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the impugned order of dismissal is disobeyed.

Nand Kishore Pareek and Ors. Vs Moti Lal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22641/2017

¶3

Nand Kishore Pareek S/o Late Shri Dhakal Lal Ji Purohit, R/o Village Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

Hukum Chand Pareek S/o Late Shri Dhakal Lal Ji Purohit, R/o Village Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

Mahesh Pareek S/o Late Shri Dhakal Lal Ji Purohit, R/o Village Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Moti Lal Jat S/o Shri Jagannath Jat, R/o Todawato Ki Dhani, Village Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (raj.)

¶9

Sohan Lal Jat S/o Shri Jagannath Jat, R/o Todawato Ki Dhani, Village Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (raj.)

¶10

Anandi Lal Pareek S/o Late Shri Dhokal Lal Ji Purohit, R/o Village Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.C. Sharma with Mr. S.L. Sharma.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

13/12/2017

¶16

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Jaipur, District Jaipur whereby in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before it, dismissing the petitioner-nonapplicant-decree-holder’s (hereinafter ‘the non-applicant’) application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC interalia on the ground that evidences requisite for the decision on the matter before it had already been submitted and summoning of the record in case no.657/1999 titled State vs. Sohan Lal & Others before the

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-22641/2017]

¶19

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.26, Sanganer, Jaipur was not warranted as a copy of the challan in case no.657/1999 had been produced in evidence which would be evaluated at the time of final disposal. The trial court has added another reason for the dismissal in recording that the application was belatedly filed without any justifiable reason at the stage of final arguments in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

¶20

Order 13 Rule 10 CPC clearly states that calling of the record from another Court for inspection in the course of a trial before it lies in the court’s discretion. The impugned order evinces exercise of discretion on well considered grounds as adverted to in the order. In the facts of the case the exercise of the trial court’s discretion is neither capricious nor reckless.

¶21

Consequently, I am of the considered view that in the facts obtaining, the impugned order dated 22.11.2017 warrants no interference under this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

The petition stands dismissed.

¶23

(ALOK SHARMA) J.

¶24

Himanshu/5.

Nand Kishore Pareek and Ors. v. Moti Lal Jat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishore Pareek and Ors. v. Moti Lal Jat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Saini and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

United India Insurance Co. Vs Badri Narain and Ors.

Mst Kailash Kaur Bagga Vs Mst Rukki Kaur and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Bharo Singh

Shokin Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jugal Kishore Vs State