Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Pratap @ Partya – Appellant
Versus
Patel Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge No-10 Jaipur Metropolitan First (Headquarter Sanganer) (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.132/2016 CIS No.98/2020 whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs (for brevity, "the plaintiffs") under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of a deed and permanent injunction wherein, on the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, issues were framed on 13.03.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved an application dated 28.05.2019 under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC praying therein for framing of four additional issues. The aforesaid application was partly allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.07.2019 whereby, two of the additional issues proposed by the plaintiffs were framed as issues No.6 and 7. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed yet another application dated 02.08.2023 under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC for framing of two additional issues which has been dismissed by t
The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition against a trial court's order, finding no error in refusing to frame additional issues post-evidence completion.
The court affirmed that distinct issues in separate suits do not warrant a stay under Section 10 CPC, and no error was found in the trial court's dismissal of the application.
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.
A party must provide valid reasons for any delay in filing applications and demonstrate the relevance of evidence to the case, as per the procedural rules under the CPC.
The court reinforced that additional issues cannot be framed without pleadings, emphasizing the necessity of a solid basis for claim and limited scope for interference under Article 227.
The main legal point established is that the appropriate remedy for challenging orders passed by the Trial Court in a civil suit is to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) ....
The court emphasized the necessity for independent consideration of applications under procedural rules, regardless of the outcomes of interconnected applications.
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
