This common order dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the rejection of an application for additional evidence and discovery. The court held the documents were irrelevant to the tenancy appeal and petitioners failed to show due diligence.
The writ petitions, stay petitions, and miscellaneous applications were dismissed as they lacked substance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2687/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
Connected With
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board, Nathdwara Through Chief Execuitve Officer, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
(2 of 13)
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
6th Floor, C- Rad, Churchgate, Mumbai - 20.
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board, Nathdwara Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board, Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2692/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
(3 of 13)
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
(4 of 13)
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2710/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2726/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board, Nathdwara Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board, Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
----Respondent
----Petitioners
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
(5 of 13)
Versus
Temple Board, Nathdwara Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board, Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
----Respondent
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board, Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
----Respondent
----Petitioners
Versus
Temple Board Nathdwara, Through Chief Executive Officer, Temple Board Nathdwara, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. AkshayNagori. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vineet Dave & |
| Mr. Kaushik Dave. |
(6 of 13)
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
04/04/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
(7 of 13)
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
(8 of 13)
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
(9 of 13)
existence of the documents has not been questioned, the learned Trial Court seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners. It was thus prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and the orders impugned be quashed and set aside while allowing the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) and Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon judgments in Narendra Gole v. Ram Krishan Sharma : 2011 2 CurCC 43, Arun Kumar v. Dharmchand Jain & Anr. : 2016 (3) WLC 338, Shri M.L. Sethi v. Shri R.P. Kapur : AIR 1972 SC 2379.
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
(10 of 13)
& Anr. v. Mahendrakumar Parshottambhai Desai (D) by LRs : 2006 (2) WLC 139. and judgment passed by this Court in Kuldeep Kaur & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13914/2019 decided on 28.02.2023. Learned counsel for the respondent Temple Board also relied upon Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1964, which inter-alia defines unauthorized occupation. Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1964 reads as infra:
“2 (e)- “unauthorized occupation”, in relation to any public premises means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other ode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.”
(11 of 13)
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
16. Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC reads as infra:
“27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court— (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if—
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or]
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.”
The petitioners while invoking Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the appellate court are required to establish the exercise of due diligence while demonstrating that such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not after exercise of due diligence produce at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. However, in the present case, the petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate before the Court that due diligence was exercised by them and also the reason for which that such evidence could not be placed by them at the time when the decree appealed against them was passed.
17. Order 11 Rule 12 CPC reads as infra:
“12. Application for discovery of documents— Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein. On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion be thought fit :
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
(12 of 13)
Provided that discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.”
Upon perusal of the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, where application for discovery of a document is preferred, it is seen that any party may apply to the court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make discoveries on oaths of the documents, which are or have been in possession or power relating to any matter in question therein. Thus, when the petitioners have invoked the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, they were under an obligation to demonstrate before the court the relevance of the documents to the matter subjudice before the learned Trial Court. However, the petitioners utterly failed to show the relevance or relation to the documents for which application was filed requesting the court to direct the respondent to produce the said documents, which were in its possession, and thus no indulgence could be granted to the petitioners.
[2024:RJ-JD:15053]
[CW-2687/2024]
(13 of 13)
“Mr. Sorabjee appearing on behalf of the respondents rightly submitted that Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked by a party to fill up the lacunae in his case. The State found itself in a dilemma when confronted with two sets of documents conflicting with each other. There was no plea that the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence could not be produced earlier despite efforts diligently made by the State or that such evidence was not within its knowledge. In fact no ground whatsoever was made out for adducing additional evidence, and the sole purpose for which the State insisted upon adducing additional evidence was to persuade the Court to accept the point of view urged on behalf of the State, since the evidence on record did not support the case of the appellants/State. Having considered all aspects of the matter we are satisfied that the High Court rightly rejected the applications filed by the State for adducing additional evidence at the stage of appeal which was intended only to fill up the lacunae in its case.”
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
58 to 70-DJ/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 CPC when the lower court correctly rejected an application for additional evidence as irrelevant.
Whether the documents sought to be summoned were relevant and germane to the matter sub judice.
Whether the petitioners exercised due diligence to produce evidence earlier.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narendra Gole v. Ram Krishan Sharma : 2011 2 CurCC 43Referred¶11
Arun Kumar v. Dharmchand Jain & Anr. : 2016 (3) WLC 338Referred¶11
Shri M.L. Sethi v. Shri R.P. Kapur : AIR 1972 SC 2379Referred¶11
The State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Mahendrakumar Parshottambhai Desai (D) by LRs : 2006 (2) WLC 139Referred¶13
Kuldeep Kaur & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13914/2019Referred¶13
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyamlal S/o Motilal Rathi and Ors.
Temple Board Nathdwara
Nupur Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
