Allowed

Fateh Singh v. Hasti Mal

Rajasthan HC23 Sept 2022CW/6299/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions challenging orders that rejected a petitioners' application to produce original documents with a six-year delay. The Court set aside the impugned orders, directed the trial court to admit the originals subject to payment of costs, and granted leave to adduce evidence in a single instance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; application to produce original documents allowed subject to payment of Rs. 16,000 cost; leave granted to adduce evidence on fixed date.

Fateh Singh Vs Hasti Mal — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11412/2022

¶4

Fateh Singh S/o Saang Singh Panwar, Aged About 51 Years, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶5

Babu Singh S/o Saang Singh Panwar, Aged About 65 Years, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶6

Smt. Devi W/o Govind Singh Panwar, Aged About 77 Years, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶7

Ratan Singh S/o Narayan Singh Gehlot, Aged About 86 Years, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶8

Ganesh Ram S/o Lachhman Hawa, Aged About 62 Years, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶9

Prem Prakash S/o Bala Ram Mali, Aged About 72 Years, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶10

Abdul Gani S/o Peer Khan, Aged About 72 Years, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶11

Kuldeep S/o Shyam Singh Mali, Aged About 45 Years, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

Hasti Mal S/o Bhanwar Lal Mali, Narayanpura, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶15

Urban Improvement Trust, Now Jodhpur Development Authority Through Secretary.

¶16

Panna Lal S/o Oda Ram Mali, Narayanpura, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶17

Municipal Corporation Jodhpur, Through Commissioner.

¶18

Sushila Devi W/o Shanku Singh Gehlot, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶19

Om Singh S/o Saang Singh Panwar, Gali No.1, Lal Sagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

Connected With

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6299/2019

¶23

Fateh Singh S/o Shri Saang Singh, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Panwar, Ravna Rajput, Resident Of Gali No. -1, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶24

(2 of 6)

¶25

[CW-11412/2022]

¶26

Sushila Devi W/o Shri Shanku Singh, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Panwar, Ravna Rajput, Resident Of Gali No. -1, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶27

Babu Singh S/o Shri Saang Singh, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Panwar, Ravna Rajput, Resident Of Gali No. -1, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶28

Smt. Devi W/o Shri Govind Singh Ji, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Panwar, Ravna Rajput, Resident Of Gali No. -1, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶29

Doongar Singh S/o Shri Saand Singh, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Panwar, Ravna Rajput, Resident Of Gali No. -1, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶30

Kan Singh S/o Shri Saang Singh, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Panwar, Ravna Rajput, Resident Of Gali No. -1, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶31

Om Singh S/o Shri Saang Singh, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Panwar, Ravna Rajput, Resident Of Gali No. -1, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶32

Ratan Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Gehlot, Resident Of Gali No. 01, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶33

Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Lachhaman Ji, Aged About 61 Years, By Caste Hawa, Resident Of Gali No. 01, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶34

Prem Prakash S/o Shri Balaram Ji, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Gali No. 01, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶35

Abdul Gani S/o Shri Peer Khan Ji, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Gali No. 01, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶36

Kuldeep S/o Shri Shyam Singh, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Gali No. 01, Lalsagar, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶37

----Petitioners

¶38

Versus

¶39

Hasti Mal S/o Bhanwar Lal Ji, By Caste Mali, Resident Narayanpura, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶40

Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, By Caste Mali, Resident Narayanpura, Mandore, Jodhpur. (Dead)

¶41

Urban Improvement Trust Now Johdpur Development

¶42

(3 of 6)

¶43

[CW-11412/2022]

¶44

Authority, Through Secretary.

¶45

Panna Lal S/o Shri Oda Ram Ji, By Caste Mali, Resident Narayanpura, Mandore, Jodhpur.

¶46

Municipal Corporation Jodhpur, Through Commissioner.

¶47

----Respondents

¶48

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi Mr. Mahendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Boob Mr. Rishabh Handa for Mr. Manjul Shrimali

¶49

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶50

Order

¶51

23/09/2022

¶52

The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6299/2019 is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 14.03.2018, whereby the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC to allow them to produce original documents, photocopies of which, have already been filed by the petitioners alongwith the written statements. The trial court has rejected the said application while observing that the petitioners have failed to mention in their application that how the original documents are relevant. The trial court has also observed that though the petitioners were impleaded as party in the suit and the evidence in the case was started on 13.07.2012, however, as the application is moved by the petitioners in the year 2018 with a great delay, therefore, the same was dismissed by the trial court.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that alongwith the written statements, they have filed certain photocopies of the documents and vide application under Order 8

¶54

(4 of 6)

¶55

[CW-11412/2022]

¶56

Rule 1 CPC, the petitioners have sought permission to produce the orginal documents on record, however, the trial court without considering this aspect of the matter, has illegally rejected the said application vide impugned order.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that though, there is a delay in producing the original documents before the trial court, but the said delay can very well be compensated by paying cost to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay appropriate cost for the same.

¶58

The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11412/2022 is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 21.01.2020, whereby the trial court has closed opportunity of petitioners to produce evidence in defence.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the trial court has refused to allow the petitioners to place on record the original documents, photocopies of which are already annexed with the written statement and against the said action of the trial court, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6299/2019 is pending consideration before this Court, therefore, the petitioners have failed to adduce their evidence in defence as they were advised that in the absence of original documents, on which, they are relying, there is no use in producing the evidence in defence.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the interest of justice, one last opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to produce their evidence in defence and for that, the petitioners are ready to pay appropriate cost to the plaintiffs.

¶61

(5 of 6)

¶62

[CW-11412/2022]

¶63

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the writ petitions and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the trial court.

¶64

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has erred in not allowing the petitioners to produce the original documents, photocopies of which are already filed by the petitioners along with the written statements. There is no basis of finding of the trial court that those documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy. However, it is observed that the original documents were in possession of the petitioners since beginning, but they have filed application for bringing those original documents on record with a delay of around six years.

¶65

Be that as it may, the said delay can very well be compensated by paying appropriate cost to the plaintiff No.1.

¶66

In the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 14.03.2018 and 21.01.2020 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Suit No.145/2016 (Old No.460/2001) are set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC with a prayer to allow them to produce original documents, photocopies of which are already filed along with the written statements is allowed.

¶67

The trial court shall take on record the original documents, photocopies of which are already filed by the petitioners along with their written statement subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs.16,000/- to the respondent No.1Hasti Mal.

¶68

(6 of 6) [CW-11412/2022]

¶69

After taking on record the original documents as directed above, the petitioners may adduce their evidence in defence in one go on 06.10.2022, the date already fixed by the trial court.

¶70

However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not take any adjournment on the ground that the legal representatives of some of the defendants have not taken on record.

¶71

It is also made clear that if the petitioners fail to pay the cost to respondent No.1 - Hasti Mal as directed above or fail to produce their evidence in defence on 06.10.2022, no further opportunity will be granted.

¶72

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶73

42-mohit/-

Fateh Singh v. Hasti Mal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fateh Singh v. Hasti Mal

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

Chaila Ram Vs State

Manoj Singh @ Tinku Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharma Ram @ Dharmendra @ Dharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Bhati Vs Chandra Shekhar Gupta

Fateh Singh Vs Hasti Mal

Gulab Chand Vs Lrs. of Shyam Shah