Allowed

Fateh Lal v. the A.D.J.F.T.N0.6,UDAIPUR and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2023CW/7149/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Additional District Judge's dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to bring documents on record, accepting that Rules of procedure must aid justice and not thwart it.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.11.2006 setting aside the plaintiff's application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC is set aside; application accepted.

Fateh Lal Vs the A.D.J.F.T.N0.6,UDAIPUR and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41295]

[CW-7149/2006]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7149/2006

¶6

Lrs of Fateh Lal S/o Devaji Dangi.

¶7

1/1. Smt. Bhnwari Bai D/o Shri Fatehlal W/o Shri Bherulal Ji Dangi, resident of Shobhapura.

¶8

1/2. Sh. Ramlal S/o Shri Fatehlal, resident of Motimagari Schieme, Udaipur.

¶9

1/3. Smt. Nari Bai D/o Fatehlal W/o Shri Hiralal Ji Dangi, resident of Shobhapura.

¶10

1/4. Dhanraj S/o Fatehlal, resident of Motimagari Scheme, Udaipur.

¶11

1/5. Smt. Panna Bai W/o Late Shri Fatehlal, resident of Motimagari Scheme, Udaipur.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

The Additional District Judge (FT) No.6, Udaipur.

¶15

Shri Promod S/o Shri Nana Lalji Champawat, resident of 222, Saheli Hotel, Udaipur.

¶16

Shri Raj Kumar S/o Shri Shanti Lalji Bafna, resident of 40, Panchavati, Udaipur.

¶17

Neemachmata Navgrah Nirmal Sahakari Samiti Limited, Devali Udaipur – Through its Secretary Shri Shobha Lal S/ o Kishan Lal Kumawat.

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Prashant Tatia.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	C.S. Rathore.

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶21

Order (Oral)

¶22

29/11/2023

¶23

Under challenge herein is an order dated 10.11.2006 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FT) No.6 Udaipur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Civil Suit

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41295]

[CW-7149/2006]

No.36/2005 (Fateh Lal Vs. Pramod & Ors.), vide which, an application moved by plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

¶28

Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

¶29

2.1. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. Upon service of the summons, defendants No.1 & 2 filed a written statement and denied the averments contained therein. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the same.

¶30

2.2. After completion of the pleadings of the rival parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues, including relief.

¶31

2.3. An application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC was subsequently filed by the petitioner for bringing on record certain documents, inter alia, stating that earlier, while recording the evidence of the plaintiff, the said documents were not found instantly and thus could not be produced.

¶32

2.5. The defendants No.1 & 2 filed a reply to the said application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff was having knowledge about the said document, and yet he did not produce the same deliberately.

¶33

2.6. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, rejected the application vide order dated 10.11.2006. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2006, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶34

I have heard the rival contentions of the respective counsels and perused the impugned order dated 10.11.2006.

[2023:RJ-JD:41295]

[CW-7149/2006]

(3 of 4)

3.1. The learned court below was of the view that there was no mention of the documents to be produced in the application itself and the same were in possession of the plaintiff at the time when the suit was filed. It is also recorded in the order assailed herein that there is no justification to bring the documents on record, at this stage, especially when the evidence of both parties stands concluded. Allowing the same would result in reverting the case to the primary stage and delay the trial.

¶39

I am, however, unable to convince myself with the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the learned trial court. It seems that the learned trial Court got rather over-swayed with the fact that permitting the to place documents on record would result in delay in the trial and it was merely a dilatory tactic on the part of the plaintiff.

¶40

No doubt, permitting the documents in question at the stage, would have resulted in a delay in the proceedings. It is rather paradoxical that what the trial Court was trying to avoid, in fact, has led to far worse consequences in as much as the trial being stalled for the past 17 years, owing to an interim order passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court, in seisin of the proceedings at the relevant time.

¶41

That aside, as regards the relevance of the documents, there is no doubt that the same are relevant with regard to the pending lis before the learned trial Court.

¶42

Also, there is another aspect of the matter that the said documents were sought to be introduced only after the crossexamination of the defendant witness, wherein it was denied that he received the sale consideration pursuant to the sale-deed.

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41295]

[CW-7149/2006]

Settled position in law is that any sale without consideration is void ab initio , and to that extent, the petitioner-plaintiff was welladvised that he has to prove receipt of sale consideration, and it is only in pursuit thereof he has sought to place on record these documents.

¶47

I am of the view that the learned trial Court adopted a rather overly pedantic approach in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 14, being of the mind that the ingredients contained in the provision therein are not met.

¶48

Trite law it is that Rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot be allowed to thwart real and substantial justice between the parties. 10. As an upshot, the impugned order is set aside. Application of the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 is accepted. The documents sought to be placed on record shall be read in evidence, subject to the same being proved in accordance with law.

¶49

Needless to say, that the defendants shall have right to object the said documents in accordance with law, in the same manner as plaintiff has right to prove the same.

¶50

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶51

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

¶52

(ARUN MONGA), J

¶53

Whether reportable - Yes / No

¶54

29-a.asopa/-

Fateh Lal v. the A.D.J.F.T.N0.6,UDAIPUR and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fateh Lal v. the A.D.J.F.T.N0.6,UDAIPUR and Ors.

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

Balkishan Sharma Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Anr.

Charu Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Basir Khan and Anr. Vs Afjal Meeya @ Nisar Ahmed and Anr.

Deepak Kumar Vs Naveen Kumar

Shree Krishna Vidhyalay Prabandhak Samiti Vs National Council for Teacher Education New Delhi

Ashok Sancheti Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal and Ors.