Dismissed

Rama M Bhansali Alias Romi M Bhansali v. Teerthendra Suri Smarak Sangh Trust

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2024CW/13849/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a trial court's refusal to exhibit bank cheque-book and passbook documents during cross-examination of plaintiff's witness PW-1. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, holding documents relating to a non-witness third party could not be exhibited under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rama M Bhansali Alias Romi M Bhansali Vs Teerthendra… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:35219]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13849/2024

¶4

Rama M Bhansali Alias Romi M Bhansali D/o Shri Mishrimal Bhansali, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Dhanera, District Banaskantha (Gujrat) At Present R/o Baamanwadi, Veerwara, District Sirohi (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Teerthendra Suri Smarak Sangh Trust, Teerthedra Nagar, Village Post Baakra Road, Tehsil And District Jalore Through Secretary Ratanchand Jain Shri Deshmal Ji Oswal, R/o Gram Modra Tehsil Bheenmal, District Jalore (Raj.). PERFORMA RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶8

Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Ramdev Ji Agrawal, R/o Baakra Road, Tehsil And District Jalore (Raj.).

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Jalore (Raj.).

¶10

Tehsildar, Jalore.

¶11

Sub Registrar, Jalore.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jay Prakash Bhardwaj

¶14

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶15

Order

¶16

27/08/2024

¶17

The present writ petition has been preferred with a prayer that the action of the learned Trial Court in sustaining the objection of the respondent plaintiff No.1 while cross-examining the witness PW-1 Ratan Chand Jain be set aside and further that the document in question be permitted to be accepted/exhibited in evidence for collateral purpose.

[2024:RJ-JD:35219]

[CW-13849/2024]

(2 of 3)

The case of the petitioner is that while PW-1 Ratan Chand Jain was being cross-examined, questions/suggestions related to the cheque book and passbook of some bank account were sought to be put to the witness and further, the said documents were prayed to be exhibited. However, the learned Trial Court observed that the said documents pertain to a third party who was not a part of the list of witnesses and nor were the said documents a part of the record. Therefore, the Court observed that the said documents being irrelevant could not have been permitted to be exhibited.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole case of the plaintiff is that the property in question was not purchased by Kamal Muni from his own income or proceeds as he did not have any. Whereas the documents which are sought to be exhibited by the defendants clearly reflect to the contrary and hence, ought to have been permitted to be exhibited.

¶23

Heard the counsel and perused the plaint as well as the statements of PW-1 as recorded.

¶24

A bare perusal of the same makes it clear that the questions sought to be put to the plaintiff’s witness, were pertaining to some documents related neither to the plaintiff trust nor the plaintiff witness.

¶25

In the specific opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff’s witness could not have been put questions which do not relate to any of the documents pertaining to him or which could have been termed to refresh his memory. Admittedly, the documents pertained to Kamal Muni which rightly could not have been permitted to be exhibited in plaintiff’s

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:35219]

[CW-13849/2024]

evidence. If the defendant placed reliance on the said documents, the same could be got exhibited by him only in his evidence and could not have been prayed to be exhibited in terms of Order 13 Rule 3, CPC.

¶30

No case for indulgence in the present writ petition is made out and the same is hence, dismissed .

¶31

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

¶32

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶33

9-KashishS/-

Rama M Bhansali Alias Romi M Bhansali v. Teerthendra Suri Smarak Sangh Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rama M Bhansali Alias Romi M Bhansali v. Teerthendra Suri Smarak Sangh Trust

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

Akhi Vs Bheraram

Naanalal Vs Shyamlal

Tej Prakash Vs Kana Ram @ Chota Ram

Hasan Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Govind Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure Private Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan