Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Bhojraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Malpura, District Tonk (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.62/2016 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants (for brevity, "the defendants") wherein, he filed an application as aforesaid which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2024.
3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that while dismissing the application, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the delay in filing the application was well explained. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 16.01.2024 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 CP
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 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 emphasized that documents not presented at the initiation of a suit cannot be accepted later without adequate reason, especially after a significant delay.
A plaintiff cannot arbitrarily place on record documents that should have been produced at the time of filing the plaint, and the court will consider the reasons for not filing the documents earlier.
Documents not part of the pleadings and not on record cannot be considered in a civil suit, and the scope of interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited.
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 High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited; parties must appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) against dismissal of applications under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.
Limitation – Discretionary power of court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of....
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
