Allowed

Prahlad S/O Kana v. Bhooli Wife of Surajkaran

Rajasthan HC28 Nov 2018CW/19322/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to admit a post-filing relinquishment deed. The single-judge bench held that the document was material and the lower court's discretion could not be sustained as an identical earlier deed was admitted.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing refusal to take on record the relinquishment deed dated 8th August 2012 is interfered with; the Court below is directed to take the deed on record.

Prahlad S/O Kana Vs Bhooli Wife of Surajkaran — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 19322/2018

¶3

Prahlad S/o Kana, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Jhajhda, Choru, Tehsil Phagi District Jaipur.

¶4

Ramjeewan S/o Kana, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Jhajhda, Choru, Tehsil Phagi District Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bhooli Wife Of Surajkaran, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Kairiya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

¶8

Gulab Daughter Of Surajkaran Wife Of Hari Narayan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Nayagaon, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

¶9

District Collector, Jaipur.

¶10

Tehsildar, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

¶11

Shrilal S/o Bhura, By Caste Jat, R/o Choru, Tehsil Phagi District Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶14

: Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj with Mr. Harsh Vardhan Sharma

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶16

Order

¶17

28/11/2018

¶18

Vide order dated 26^th July, 2018, the Court below while adjudicating upon application instituted by the plaintiff-petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 (1) CPC, declined the prayer of the petitioners for taking on record the relinquishment deed(s) executed on 8^th August, 2012, though allowed the prayer with reference to identical documents to be taken on record, executed on 27^th October, 2006.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-19322/2018]

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application urged that the suit proceedings were instituted on 2nd November, 2006, and the relinquishment deed(s) (Haktyag), declined to be taken on record, were excuted on 8^th August, 2012.

¶22

Further, while the Court below allowed the prayer of the petitioners to take on record the relinquishment deed, that is identical nature which was excuted on 27^th October, 2006; hence, there was no good reason to declince the prayer for taking on record the relinquishment deed executed on 8^th August, 2012.

¶23

It is further urged that a glance of the pleadings of the plaint and relief prayed for, would further reflect that the documents i.e. relinquishment deed dated 8^th August, 2012, is very much relevant and needs to be taken on record for complete and final adjudication of the matter. Moreover, its relevance would be evident from a glance of the releif clause.

¶24

Per contra, Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, resisting the claim of the petitioner urged that documents not produced with the plaint could be taken on record only with the leave of the Court, in view of Order 7 Rule 14. To substantiate his stands; learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Monika Vs. Surendra Bhansali & Ors.: 2016 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 496.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance scanned the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at Bar so also critically examined the impugned order dated 26^th July, 2018, to the extent of declining the prayer of the petitioners with reference to relinquishment deed dated 8^th August, 2012.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-19322/2018]

¶28

Indisputably, the contents of plaint and the releif prayed for would leave no element of doubt that the document(s) (relinquishment deed), is material to the subject matter of dispute. Even in the case, which have been referred to and relied upon by the counsel of the respondents, a co-ordinate bench of this court taking note of the fact that rules of procedure are hand maiden of justice and the cause of justice cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of failure to observe the procedure laid down strictly. In the factual matrix of the case at hand, the discretion exercised by the Court below in declining to take on record the relinquishment deed dated 8^th August, 2012, which came into extistence after filing of the suit procedings while allowining the relinquishment deed dated 27^th October, 2006; to be taken on record; cannot be sustained.

¶29

For the reasons and discussions aforesaid so also in conspicuous factual matrix of the case at hand, the writ application mertis acceptance.

¶30

In the result, the impugned order dated 26^th July, 2018, is interfered with to the extent it declined to take on record the relinquishment deed dated 8^th August, 2012.

¶31

Accordingly, Court below would take on record the relinquishment deed dated 8^th August, 2012, and procced further in accordance with law.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶34

M.Meena/143

Prahlad S/O Kana v. Bhooli Wife of Surajkaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad S/O Kana v. Bhooli Wife of Surajkaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal S/O Late Shri Kalyan by Caste Mali Vs Smt. Mangi Devi W/O Ramdev by Caste Mali

Tarachand Shyoran Vs Shriram Transport Finance and Anr.

Padam Singh Parmar S/O Shri Ram Swaroop Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary

Asha Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vishnu Devi Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Preeti Sharma D/O Shri Subhash Chand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary