Allowed

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Sheela Kumari

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2023CW/1880/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and Section 151 CPC to record documents in a civil suit. The Court set aside the impugned order, holding that procedural rules should not override substantive justice, and granted the stay vacated.

What did the court decide?

The application of the petitioner seeking to place the documents on record is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Vs Sheela Kumari — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:37235]

[CW-1880/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1880/2019

¶6

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, Through Its Secretary.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Sheela Kumari D/o Late Shri Jagannath Ji Kasara (Wife of Shri Amar Singh Choudhary), Resident of D-14, Hiran Magari, Sector No.5, Manvakheda, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tribhuwan Gupta

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order(Oral)

¶13

02/11/2023

¶14

Petition herein is directed against an order dated 16.07.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge of City-North, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 66/2012, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, for taking documents appended with the written statement on record, was dismissed. 2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant writ petition.

¶15

2.1 The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as described in the plaint (Annexure-1). It is averred in the plaint that the defendant intends to dispossess the plaintiff from the land in question.

¶16

2.2 The defendant filed the written statement dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure-2) and denied the averments of the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff had illegally claimed the land in

[CW-1880/2019]

[2023:RJ-JD:37235]

(2 of 3)

question. It was further averred that proceedings under Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act were initiated against the petitioner, and vide order dated 04.07.2012 (Annexure-3), the learned Court ordered the removal of encroachments made by the respondent.

¶21

2.3 During the pendency of the suit, an application (Annexure-4) under Order 8, Rule 1(Ka-3), read with Section 151 CPC, was preferred by the petitioner, with the averment that the proceedings undertaken by the U.I.T., Udaipur for the removal of encroachments made by the petitioner, and the documents pertaining to the said proceedings could not be produced with the written statement by the petitioner's advocate, and thus, it was requested to take the same on record.

¶22

2.4 The learned trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure-5), has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the instant writ petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file.

¶24

The documents to be produced by the petitioner are public documents, and it appears that the reliability and sanctity of the same cannot be doubted, in any case, respondent plaintiff has a right to dispute the same it is so wishes. In the later eventuality, needless to say that the petitioner shall have to prove the same in accordance with law. Either way, the learned trial Court adopted an erroneous approach rejecting the application seeking to places the same on record.

¶25

Trite law it is that Rules of procedure are a handmaid of justice and, ought not be given precedence at the cost of

[2023:RJ-JD:37235]

[CW-1880/2019]

(3 of 3)

subjugation of substantive justice. They cannot be allowed to thwart real and substantial justice between the parties.

¶30

Furthermore, the trial is still at evidence stage of the defendant/petitioner. The documents could not thus have been rejected on the ground of mere delay. The petitioner has validly disclosed the reason in its application for not producing the same at the time of filing the written statement. It is stated in the application that a complaint was registered with respect to the illegal encroachment and construction raised for which, necessary action was taken. The documents relating to the aforesaid action were inadvertently not filed by the previous counsel. The same are necessary and relevant and ought to be taken on record.

¶31

I am of the view that for proper adjudication of the controversy in suit viz. whether or not the respondent/plaintiff is an encroacher over the land in question, documents in question appear to be relevant.

¶32

As an upshot of the discussion aforesaid coupled with the other reasons stated in the writ petition, the same is allowed. 9. Application of the petitioner seeking to place the documents on record is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Stay granted by this court is vacated. The learned trial Court to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶33

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶34

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶35

207-Shahenshah/Divya-

¶36

Fit for reporting- Yes / No.

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Sheela Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Sheela Kumari

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

Smt. Antari Devi Vs Chunni Lal and Anr.

St. Patrick Vidhya Bhawan Vs State and Ors.

Lokmanya Tilak Pashudhan Sahayak Mahavidhyalaya Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Rajpurohit Vs Sub Divisional Officer

Suja Ram Vs Pali Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.

Ganpat Ram Vs Sukha Ram