Dismissed

Gopal Lal Pareek S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal v. Kanhaiyalal S/O Late Shri Govind Baksh @ Bhori Lal

Rajasthan HC23 Oct 2019CW/16944/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court's order that partly allowed a delayed application to produce documents in a 30-year-old partition suit. The court held no illegity occurred as possession bills were admitted and other documents were irrelevant, but directed the trial court to decide the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood dismissed; the trial court directed to conclude and decide the pending suit within six months.

Gopal Lal Pareek S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal Vs Kanhaiyalal S/O Late… — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16944/2019

¶3

Gopal Lal Pareek S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Pareek, R/o Plot No.22, At Present Gopinath Society Ankleshwar Akhada, District Manroch (Gujarat) And R/o House No. 4799, Kundigar Ke Bheruji Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶4

Ghanshyam S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Pareek, R/o House No. 4799, Kundigar Ke Bheruji Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶5

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Pareek, R/o House No. 4799, Kundigar Ke Bheruji Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kanhaiyalal S/o Late Shri Govind Baksh @ Bhori Lal, R/o House No. 4799, Kundigar Ke Bheruji Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, R/o House No. 4799, Kundigar Ke Bheruji Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶10

Harish Chand S/o Late Shri Govind Baksh, R/o U.u.20, Malviya Nagar, Malviya Engineering Hostel Ke Piche, Gram Jhalana, Jaipur.

¶11

Smt. Puran Devi W/o Shri Banshidhar Ji, By Caste Pareek, R/o Village Jhalana, Malviya Engineering College Ke Piche, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶12

Smt. Dhan Kanwar W/o Shri Mohan Lal Pareek, R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Chomu, Kaladera Road, District Jaipur.

¶13

Smt. Damodari W/o Shri Kajodmal, By Caste Pareek, R/o House No. 4262, Nathmal Ji Ka Chowk, Kundigar Bheruji Ka Rasta, Jaipur.

¶14

Smt. Prem Devi W/o Shri Gajanand, By Caste Pareek, R/o House No. 177, Chelo Ka Rasta, Nagar Khana, Sirehadyodhi Bazar Ki Gali, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) :

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

(2 of 3)

[CW-16944/2019]

Order

23/10/2019

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.09.2019, passed by the trial Court whereby the application submitted by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was dismissed.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the property in the year 1989, before the trial Court against the defendants-respondents. During pendency of the suit, the defendant-respondent No.3 filed an application for taking certain documents on record, which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2013, with liberty to the petitioners-plaintiffs to submit their documents, if they desire. Pursuant to the said liberty, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC after a delay of six years in the year 2019, which was partly allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2019. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court has committed serious illegality in partly allowing the application. Along with the application filed by the petitioners for taking certain documents on record i.e. bills of electricity, water and telephone of the suit property were allowed to be taken on record. However, certain copies of decisions in various suit proceedings as well as evidence of the defendant No.3 recorded in another case were wrongly declined by the trial court for taking on record, which are also necessary to decide the suit.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-16944/2019]

¶27

Counsel further submits that even the photographs have not been allowed to be taken on record.

¶28

Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

¶29

This writ petition filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed for the reason that; firstly, the petitionersplaintiffs have filed application for taking on record the documents in pursuance to the liberty granted by the trial Court vide order dated 27.5.2013, after a delay of six years; secondly, for deciding the controversy involved in the suit, necessary documents with regard to possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs i.e. bills of telephone, water and electricity have already been allowed to be taken on record by the trial Court and so far as the other documents relating to the proceedings of other matters are concerned, the same has no bearing in the present matter, therefore, in my considered view, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in partly allowing the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for taking on record the documents which only are required for decision of the suit.

¶30

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶31

However, considering the fact that the suit is pending before the trial Court since last 30 years, I deem it just and proper to direct the trial Court to conclude and decide the pending suit within a period of six months.

¶32

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.

¶33

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶34

Pcg/105

Gopal Lal Pareek S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal v. Kanhaiyalal S/O Late Shri Govind Baksh @ Bhori Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Lal Pareek S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal v. Kanhaiyalal S/O Late Shri Govind Baksh @ Bhori Lal

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

Rajeev Kasliwal Vs Smt Vimla Devi Kasliwal and Anr.

Dhanushree Meena (Minor) through Her Parents and Natural Guardian, D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Gonind Sahai Gupta S/O Late Sh. Narayan Sahai Vs Hari Babu @ Harish Kumar Saxsena S/O Sh. Kundan Lal Saxena

Munna Qureshi Vs Rais Qureshi

Surendra Kumar Tambi S/O Shri Gulabchand Tambi Vs Jairamdas Chhangani S/O Chhogamal

Mahaveer Singh@Mahaveer Rana S/O Shri Parshuram Singh B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan