Dismissed

Kashiram v. Lrs. of Late Surendra Kumar

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2024CW/10552/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of a defendant's application to file documents proving his minority at the time of an alleged agreement. The High Court noted the agreement itself recorded him as minor and the fact was undisputed, agreed with the trial court, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kashiram Vs Lrs. of Late Surendra Kumar — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:27667]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10552/2024

¶4

Kashiram S/o Rewantram, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Brahman, Resident Of Raghunathpura, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Lrs. Of Late Surendra Kumar, S/o Tirthram, By Caste Khatri, R/o Ward No. 19, Anupgarh, District - SriGanganagar.

¶8

1/1. Smt. Saroj Sarna W/o Late Surendra Kumar, Resident Of Ward No. 19, Anupgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

¶9

1/2. Amit Sarna S/o Late Surendra Kumar, Resident Of Ward No. 19, Anupgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

¶10

1/3. Atul Sarna S/o Late Surendra Kumar, Resident Of Ward No. 19, Anupgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

¶11

1/4. Smt. Kavita W/o Aditya, D/o Late Surendra Kumar, Resident Of Ward No. 19, Anupgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)

¶12

Pawan Kumar S/o Tirthram, By Caste Khatri, R/o Ward No. 5, Anupgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar.

¶13

Saraswati Devi @ Birma Devi W/o Rewantram, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sriganganagar.

¶14

Shyopatram S/o Rewantram, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sriganganagar.

¶15

Brijlal S/o Rewantram, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sriganganagar.

¶16

Om Prakash S/o Rewantram, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sriganganagar.

¶17

Dhrampal @ Palaram S/o Rewantram, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sriganganagar.

¶18

Sumitra D/o Rewantram, W/o Jiyaram, R/o Haaj Pipasar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar.

¶19

Sulochna D/o Rewantram, W/o Maniram, R/o Surjansar, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar.

¶20

(2 of 4) [CW-10552/2024]

¶21

[2024:RJ-JD:27667]

¶22

Bhagwanti D/o Rewantram, R/o Gopalsar, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar.

¶23

Pushpa D/o Rewantram, W/o Balram, R/o Pipasar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar.

¶24

Dalveer Singh S/o Sh. Pyara Singh, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sriganganagar.

¶25

----Respondents

¶26

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishank Madhan

¶27

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶28

Order

¶29

09/07/2024

¶30

The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Suratgarh in Civil Original No.22/2012 whereby the application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as preferred by the defendant, has been rejected. 2. Vide the above application, defendant Kashiram sought to place on record the documents pertaining to his age, to be specific, the Transfer Certificate, Aadhar Card and Driving License of the defendant.

¶31

Learned Trial Court, while rejecting the application, observed that the written statement by defendant Kashiram in the present suit was filed on 02.11.2011 and the issues were framed on 27.05.2016. The plaintiff evidence was closed on 23.02.2021. Moreover, an application under Order 8 Rule 1 A, CPC was earlier also filed by the defendant on 04.05.2022 which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 18.08.2023 and the

[2024:RJ-JD:27667]

[CW-10552/2024]

(3 of 4)

documents as prayed therein, were permitted to be taken on record.

¶36

The matter then proceeded on for defendant evidence. On 19.09.2023, last opportunity to lead evidence was granted to the defendant.

¶37

It is only after 13 years of the written statement having been filed that the present application was filed with a prayer to take the documents on record which were available with the defendant even earlier.

¶38

Learned Trial Court further observed that there was no reason as to why these documents were not filed earlier and as to why even while moving earlier application on 04.05.2022, the said documents were not prayed to be taken on record. The Court proceeded on to further observe that the documents as sought to be placed on record were not the ones which were not in possession of the defendant earlier and hence, there was no reason to permit the same to be taken on record at this stage.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is erroneous as it was the specific plea of the defendant in his written statement that he was a minor at the time of the execution of the alleged agreement and the documents sought to be placed on record were essential to prove the said fact.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 7. So far as the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a bare perusal of the record makes it clear that the alleged agreement in question itself specifies defendant Kashiram to be a minor. Further, the fact of the defendant Kashiram being a

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:27667]

[CW-10552/2024]

minor at the time of the execution of agreement, has not even been disputed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is incomprehensible as to why the defendant is required to prove a fact which is not even disputed.

¶45

In view of the above facts, this Court is in unison with the findings as arrived at by the learned Trial Court and no ground to interfere with the order impugned is made out.

¶46

The present writ petition is hence, dismissed .

¶47

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶48

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶49

263-AbhishekK/-

Kashiram v. Lrs. of Late Surendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kashiram v. Lrs. of Late Surendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Jinesh Mehta

Thakur Prasad Kalantri Vs Radhika

Ajay Sharma Vs Smt. Monika Jaithliya

Mohan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Lal Gaur Vs J.K. White Cement Works

Hasan Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan