The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the Additional District & Sessions Judge's order allowing the filing of an original agreement in a suit. The bench held that mere delay does not preclude filing and the action was procedural without prejudice.
The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merit.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1754 / 2018
Daljeet S/o Shri Indrapal Singh, by Caste Punjabi, R/o 10, New Market, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
----Petitioner
Versus
2/1. Nityanand S/o Late Shri Budharam
2/4. Patel Devi D/o Late Shri Budharam
2/5. Smt. Gyarasi Devi W/o Late Shri Budharam, All by Caste Ahir, R/o Dudheda, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Yadav.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
29/01/2018
(1) The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.12.2017 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Behror, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘trial Court’) whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking on record the original agreement entered between the parties has been allowed by the Trial Court on cost of `500/-.
(2 of 2)
[CW-1754/2018]
(2) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no reasons have come forward for not placing the same on record whereas from the perusal of the order dated 16.12.2017 it is apparent that earlier the certified copy of the agreement was placed on record and as there was opposition to the same, the original agreement has been placed.
(3) In view of the law that the document can be submitted at the time of hearing of the suit, it cannot be said that merely because there is a delay in producing the original record the same should not be taken on record and exhibited. The action of the trial Court is merely procedural which does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(4) The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J.
N.Gandhi/53
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere under Article 226 despite the trial court allowing the filing of an original agreement registration document belatedly without reasons.
Whether the delay in producing the original record warrants refusing to take it on record and exhibition under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC.
Whether such procedural action by the trial court causes prejudice warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Daljeet S/o Shri Indrapal Singh
Vinay Kumar S/o Shri Ramjas
Nityanand S/o Late Shri Budharam
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
