Allowed

Jyoti Rathore W/O Lt. Shri Kamal Pratap Singh Rathore v. Icici Bank Ltd.

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2024CW/3841/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application to take bills of ornaments on record. The court rejected the trial court's view that bonafide cause was lacking, held the trial court erred, and set aside the dismissal while directing the payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application to take bills on record permitted with imposition of cost on applicant.

Jyoti Rathore W/O Lt. Shri Kamal Pratap Singh Rathore… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:45897]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3841/2024

¶4

Jyoti Rathore W/o Lt. Shri Kamal Pratap Singh Rathore, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Jhabua Tower, 170, Ravindra Nath Tagore Marg, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Icici Bank Ltd., Malav Parisar, Ab Road, Indore.

¶8

Smt. Preeti Rathore W/o Shri Dhruv Raj Singh D/o Sudarshan Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Jai Ambey Colony, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

¶9

The Manager, Icici Bank Ltd. Malav Parisar, Ab Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R. P. Garg, Adv.
	Mr. Lalit Sharma, Adv. on behalf of
	Mr. Mitesh Sharma, Adv. for ICICI Bank

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

¶13

06/11/2024

¶14

This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitionerplaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No.05/2016, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking bills on record has been dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Indore for declaration and injunction to restrain the respondent-defendant No.1 (for

[2024:RJ-JP:45897]

[CW-3841/2024]

(2 of 3)

short ‘the defendant No.1’) to open of locker No.268. The said suit was transferred to Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in which plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking the bills of ornaments on record because said bills were given to the Advocate at Indore at the time of filing the suit. The said bills were not given by the Advocate. After that, plaintiff obtained said bills from the Advocate of Indore and sought to produce them before the trial court because plaintiff was owner of the ornaments and there was no evidence to the effect that the said bills were forged but the trial court vide order dated 19.02.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that it is an admitted position that there was delay in submitting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC but that can be compensated by imposing the cost. So, in the interest of justice, petition filed by the plaintiff be allowed and order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the defendants have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that trial court while dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff elaborately discussed in its order that the plaintiff had not shown any bonafide cause for not submitting these bills earlier. Evidence of the parties has already been completed. So, present petition filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants.

[2024:RJ-JP:45897]

[CW-3841/2024]

(3 of 3)

As per contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave the bills to previous Advocate at Indore and he had not returned those bills to her. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff. So, present petition filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed with cost.

¶26

The Civil Writ Petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the contesting defendant(s). Accordingly, the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside and trial court is directed to take these bills on record subject to payment of cost by the plaintiff to the contesting defendant(s) and grant one more chance to the plaintiff for adducing the evidence to the extent of those bills. Trial court is also directed to give a chance to the defendant(s) to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if they so desire.

¶27

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

¶28

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶29

Jatin /126

Jyoti Rathore W/O Lt. Shri Kamal Pratap Singh Rathore v. Icici Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Rathore W/O Lt. Shri Kamal Pratap Singh Rathore v. Icici Bank Ltd.

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

Ram Sahay S/O Moolya Vs Kanhiya Lal S/O Chand Bihari

Sri Gopal Singh Vs District Judtge Sikar and Ors.

Birbal Vs Smt Soda Devi and Anr.

Bhupendra Agarwal and Others Vs Rajendra Prasad and Others

Bhagwati Farms Vs Jeet Singh Alias Surjeet Singh, S/O Shri Ujagar Singh

Om Prakash S/O Durgalal Vs Gram Panchayat Aligarh