Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Rameshwar Prasad Meena - Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation Jaipur and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16052 of 2022
Decided On : 18-12-2023
ORDER :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (No.1) Jaipur Metropolitan II, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
2. By passing the order dated 28.09.2022, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC has been rejected.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents are public documents, which are essential for just decision of the case but the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial Judge on a technical count that the application has been filed at the stage of final arguments to delay the proceedings of the suit. Counsel submits that looking to the nature of documents and the controversy involved in the matter, the application filed by the petitioner should be allowed.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the case was posted for final arguments after completion of evidence of both sides. The petitioner got sufficient opportunities to produce the documents but in spite of having sufficient opportunities, he has failed to do so. The matter is pending before the Civil Court for more than 13 years at the stage of suit for final disposal.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be genuine. If the petitioner is allowed to produce the documents on record at the fag end of the matter, it will further create delay in disposal of the suit.
7. This Court finds no error in the order passed by the Civil Court.
8. The instant petition stands dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
The court upheld the rejection of a late application to produce documents, emphasizing the importance of timely proceedings and the avoidance of unnecessary delays in civil litigation.
The court affirmed that a party's prior knowledge of documents and repeated attempts to submit them can justify dismissal of applications aimed at delaying proceedings.
The court upheld the trial Court's discretion in dismissing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC, finding it was filed with malafide intent to delay proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of an application under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC should not be solely based on delay, and the rules of procedure should serve the....
Timely filing of documents is crucial in legal proceedings; failure to do so may result in dismissal of applications as meritless.
The defendant can produce documents subsequently only in special and extenuating circumstances with the court's permission, and procedures cannot be implemented to cause injustice or prejudice to any....
Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC requires due diligence and relevance for post-written statement documents; unexplained delay, pre-existence of some, and irrelevance to suit dispute warrant dismissal; no Articl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
