Allowed

Mallaram S/O Mathura Prasad v. Raseed Khan Son of Manja Rana

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2022CW/18983/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting a belated application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to produce a certified copy of a Gram Panchayat decision. The Court directed allowance of the application subject to payment of Rs. 15,000 as costs and a chance for rebuttal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Trial Court directed to allow application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC upon payment of Rs. 15,000 costs and provide opportunity for rebuttal.

Mallaram S/O Mathura Prasad Vs Raseed Khan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18983/2019

¶3

Mallaram S/o Mathura Prasad, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Jawli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar.

¶4

Jaswant S/o Mathura Prasad, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Jawli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Raseed Khan Son Of Manja Rana, R/o Jawli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶8

Salamat Khan Son Of Manja Rana, R/o Jawli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶9

Saleem Kyhan Son Of Manja Rana, R/o Jawli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶10

Raheesh Son Of Manja Rana, R/o Jawli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶11

Jarina W/o Manja Rana, R/o Jawli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶12

Shakil W/o Salim, R/o Jawli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Girish Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Raj Kumar Sharma, Adv.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶16

Order

¶17

15/09/2022

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the order dated 18.07.2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC has been dismissed and one document - certified copy of the decision/order

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CW-18983/2019]

¶21

dated 10.02.1998 issued by Gram Panchayat, has not been taken on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners while filing the suit had specifically mentioned in their plaint with respect to the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat and as such photocopy thereof was also filed with the suit and later on certified copy of the said document was placed on record by filing application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. The Court below has wrongly deprived the petitioners to produce such document - certified copy on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even in the reply filed by the respondents, they had not objected to take such document on record but right of rebuttal was claimed in their favour and heavy cost was also demanded by the respondents.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has wrongly rejected the application only on account of the evidence of the defendants being recorded and as such it is the petitioner’s suit which is prolonged and as such the defendants should not have objected for filing of such application.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court need not interfere in the order passed by the Court below and the petitioners should have filed document, which was in their possession at the time of filing of suit and any subsequent application at the time of recording of evidence of defendants, may not be permitted as the document, which petitioners wanted to produce on record, was already in their power and possession.

¶26

Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners were negligent in not

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[CW-18983/2019]

¶29

producing the relevant documents at the relevant time and as such no interference is required to be made by this Court.

¶30

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

This Court finds that if the petitioners-plaintiffs had made averment in their plaint with respect to certain document and photocopy was also filed of the said document along-with the suit and later on if certified copy of the said document was sought to be placed on record by moving application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, such application should not have been rejected by the Court below.

¶32

This Court further finds that the respondents in their reply to the application filed by the petitioners, though had objected about taking such document on record, however, they have also claimed right of rebuttal to produce certain documents in their favour and further asked for heavy cost to be imposed.

¶33

This Court finds that the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed suit and if they wanted to produce certain documents on record, which they could not file and the certified copy of the said document is sought to be filed by them subsequently, the same should not be denied to the plaintiffs.

¶34

This Court, however, also feels that the defendants should also get an opportunity to produce any document in their favour by way of rebuttal and cost should also be given to them as the petitioners have filed their application belatedly at the stage of recording of evidence.

¶35

This Court accordingly sets aside the order dated 18.07.2019 and the present writ petition is allowed. The Trial Court is directed

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

[CW-18983/2019]

¶38

to allow the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, on payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-, on the next date of hearing, to be paid by the petitioners-plaintiffs to the respondents-defendants as cost and thereafter the document, sought to be filed by the petitioners i.e. certified copy of the decision/order dated 10.02.1998 issued by the Gram Panchayat, may be taken on record.

¶39

It is made clear that an opportunity will be provided by the Trial Court to the respondents-defendants to lead any evidence in their favour by way of rebuttal.

¶40

The Trial Court will ensure that cost of Rs.15,000/- is paid to the respondents-defendants on the next date of hearing and only after payment of cost deposited by the petitioners, the Trial Court will proceed further in the matter.

¶41

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶43

Monika/27

Mallaram S/O Mathura Prasad v. Raseed Khan Son of Manja Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallaram S/O Mathura Prasad v. Raseed Khan Son of Manja Rana

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

Abhishek Bairwa S/O Kanwar Lal Bairwa Vs Kanwar Lal Bairwa Son of Chiman Lal Bairwa

Ravindra Singh Son of Karani Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sheela Agarwal Wife of Late Shri Om Prakash Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Shri Siddhi Industries Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd.

Kailash through Lr Vs Sanjeev Meel and Ors.

Vikas S/O Shri Shreeram Jat Vs State of Rajasthan