Dismissed

Smt. Punam Mathur W/O Shri Mukul Shai Mathur, D/O Late Shri Suraj Prakash Mathur v. Smt. Kalyani Dutt W/O Late Shri Jitendra Nath

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2019CW/5955/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A senior citizen respondent filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed. The petitioner-defendant filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of her application to produce documents, arguing they were vital for the suit's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed.

What the court decided

Smt. Punam Mathur W/O Shri Mukul Shai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5955/2019

¶3

Smt. Punam Mathur W/o Shri Mukul Shai Mathur, D/o Late Shri Suraj Prakash Mathur, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Kayasth, R/o Plot No. 19, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer.

¶4

----Defendant-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Kalyani Dutt W/o Late Shri Jitendra Nath, Aged About 87 Years, By Caste Shatriya, R/o 19, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer.

¶7

----Plaintiff-Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Peush Nag.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Rahul Agarwal.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶10

Order

¶11

03/12/2019

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the trial court whereby the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC was dismissed.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff who is 93 years old now, filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed against the petitioner-defendant in 2014. During pendency of the suit proceedings the suit was amended and the petitioner-defendant also filed reply to the amended suit. When the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was over the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC for taking on record certain documents which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 04.02.2019. Hence, this writ petition has been

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-5955/2019]

¶16

filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 04.02.2019.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has committed serious illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-defendant. Counsel further submits that the documents which the petitioner-defendant wants to be taken on record i.e. the letter dated 12.12.2016 & 16.12.2016 the same are important documents for just decision of the pending suit. Counsel further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff if such documents are taken on record.

¶18

In support of his contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of Daljit Singh & Ors. Vs. The Additional District Judge & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4336/2007).

¶19

Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposed the writ petition and submits that the application has been filed by the petitionerdefendant just to delay the suit proceedings. Counsel further submits that presently age of the respondent-plaintiff is 93 years and he is bedridden. Counsel further submits that the documents which the petitioner wants to place on record relate to the year 2016, whereas the petitioner has filed the amended reply on 14.12.2017 and evidence of the petitioner-defendant was also closed on 26.10.2019. Lastly, prayed for dismissed of the writ petition.

¶20

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, age of the respondent-plaintiff is 93 years as on today, as informed by counsel for the parties;

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-5955/2019]

¶24

secondly, the application has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff just to delay the suit proceedings as twice opportunity was available to the petitioner-defendant for submitting the documents on record; one at the time of filing amended reply on 14.12.2017 and secondly, when the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was going on, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in my considered view, the trial court has rightly used its discretion in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-defendant.

¶25

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

¶26

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶27

MG/41

Smt. Punam Mathur W/O Shri Mukul Shai Mathur, D/O Late Shri Suraj Prakash Mathur v. Smt. Kalyani Dutt W/O Late Shri Jitendra Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Punam Mathur W/O Shri Mukul Shai Mathur, D/O Late Shri Suraj Prakash Mathur v. Smt. Kalyani Dutt W/O Late Shri Jitendra Nath

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

Bhawani Dutt and Anr. Vs Manoj Kumar and Ors.

Gopal Das Gupta Vs Nagar Nigam Jaipur and Ors.

Gopal Das Gupta Vs Nagar Nigam Jaipur and Ors.

Smt.Brij Bala Pareek Vs Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Ors.

Nawal Modani Vs Jatan Singh

Miss Arpita Upadhyay @ Ashi Upadhyay D/O Shri Vivek Upadhyay Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education