Dismissed

Govind Prasad S/O Late Shri Durga Lal v. Baijnath Gupta Son of Late Shri Devi Lal Gupta

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2024/10608/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an interlocutory order dismissing an application to produce a sale deed and map on record in a civil suit for permanent injunction. The High Court quashed the lower court's order on appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' application to produce sale deed and map on record in Civil Suit No. 104/2019 was dismissed with no merit.

Govind Prasad S/O Late Shri Durga Lal Vs Baijnath Gupta… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:27656]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10608/2024

¶4

Govind Prasad S/o Late Shri Durga Lal, R/o Sabjimandi, Padamtalab, Karauli (Raj.)

¶5

Murari Lal S/o Late Shri Surajmal, R/o Sabjimandi, Padamtalab, Karauli (Raj.)

¶6

Peetam Chand S/o Late Shri Suka Lal, R/o Sabjimandi, Padamtalab, Karauli (Raj.)

¶7

Niranjan Lal S/o Late Shri Kachiya Lal, R/o Sabjimandi, Padamtalab, Karauli (Raj.)

¶8

Madanmohan S/o Late Shri Madanmohan, R/o Sabjimandi, Padamtalab, Karauli (Raj.)

¶9

----Petitioners-Plaintiffs

¶10

Versus

¶11

Baijnath Gupta Son Of Late Shri Devi Lal Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Choudhary Ke Baghichi, Opposite Private Bus Stand, Karauli (Raj.)

¶12

Ravindra Kumar Singh S/o Late Hargyan Singh, (Deceased)

¶13

2/1. Gaurav Kumar Singh S/o Late Ravindra Kumar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Saledi Wala Rawal, Anaj Mandi, Karauli At Present Working At Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Head Office Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶14

2/2 Smt. Reena Singh W/o Late Ravindra Kumar Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Saledi Wala Rawal, Karauli Through Son Gaurav Kumar Singh S/o Lae Ravindra Kumar Singh Aged 35 Year At Present Working At Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Head Office Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶15

2/3. Jyoti Singh D/o Late Ravindra Kumar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Saledi Wala Rawal, Karauli Through Brother Gaurav Kumar Singh At Present Working At Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Head Office Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶16

----Respondents/Defendants

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

03/07/2024

[2024:RJ-JP:27656]

[CW-10608/2024]

(2 of 3)

Petitioners-plaintiffs have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the interlocutory order dated 01.06.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.104/2019 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, dismissing their application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC.

¶25

It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners sought to produce the document of sale deed dated 03.01.1962 and map of Nagar Palika, Karauli dated 13.03.1970 on record to support the civil suit filed by plaintiffs for seeking permanent injunction in respect of such property and that the Trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in declining to take these documents on record.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by petitioners-plaintiffs way back in the year 1991 and plaintiffs’ evidence have already been concluded. The Trial Court has observed that as far as the map is concerned, the same is already exhibited as Exhibit-1 by plaintiffs and as well as the sale deed dated 03.01.1962 is concerned, same is not referred in pleadings of the plaint, thus, the Trial Court has observed that plaintiffs could not establish the relevancy of the document of sale deed sought to be produced on record, more so after conclusion of their evidence. The Trial Court has also observed that there is no justification by plaintiffs for not producing these documents on record which were well within his knowledge even at the time of filing of the suit.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:27656]

[CW-10608/2024]

This Court in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not find the impugned order to be suffered from any jurisdictional error and the Trial Court in its judicious exercise of discretion had declined to take these documents on record assigning reasons.

¶31

Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.

¶32

Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶33

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶34

TN/55

Govind Prasad S/O Late Shri Durga Lal v. Baijnath Gupta Son of Late Shri Devi Lal Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Prasad S/O Late Shri Durga Lal v. Baijnath Gupta Son of Late Shri Devi Lal Gupta

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

M/S Sakshi Computers Vs State of Rajasthan

Bindu Chaudhary W/O Sh. Ramesh Chaudhary Vs Manoj Swami S/O Shri Tara Chand Swami

Mahendra Jain S/O Late Shri Chiranji Lal Jain Vs Shri Digamber Jain Mandir

Jagdish Son of Late Shri Ramdayal Vs Meharchand Son of Jayram

Subhash Gupta S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Gupta Vs Nagar Nigam Heritage

Rakesh S/O Late Jagannath Vs Babu Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Kaluram Meena(Deceased)