SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Ghanshyam Singh and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Nagar Palika Jaitaran and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4174 of 2024
Decided on : 18-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hari Singh Rajpurohit

IMPORTANT POINT
Timely filing of documents is crucial in legal proceedings; failure to do so may result in dismissal of applications as meritless.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7, Rule 14 and Section 151 - Writ petition against the rejection of an application to summon records - Petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and sought to introduce documents obtained via RTI during final arguments - Court held that the trial court rightly rejected the application as documents should have been filed earlier. (Paras 2, 4, 8)

(B) Procedural Compliance - Petitioners must challenge the order rejecting their application for records instead of waiting until final arguments - The court emphasized the importance of timely submission of evidence. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:

The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, seeking to summon records from official respondents, which was rejected, leading to the current writ petition.

Findings of Court:

The trial court's order rejecting the application was upheld as it did not suffer from any infirmity.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to summon records at a late stage of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners should have filed the documents earlier and that the trial court acted correctly in rejecting the application at this stage.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER :

Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 read with section 151 CPC has been rejected.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the case are that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 r/w section 151 CPC to summon certain records from the official respondents, however, the said application has been rejected and the petitioners have been granted liberty to obtain those documents independently by way of approaching the official respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the RTI applications filed by the petitioners, those documents were received by them and, therefore, the same are now being placed on record by way of filing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has committed an error while rejecting the application of the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 11.05.2023 may be quashed and set aside.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the order impugned dated 11.05.2023.

6. The undisputed facts in the care are that the petitioners have filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners are in possession of certain piece of land and during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the petitioners filed an application before the official respondents for grant of Patta. On the application so preferred by the petitioners for grant of Patta, certain correspondence was made by the official respondents which is sought to be brought on record by way of filing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC.

7. The chronology of the facts reflect that the petitioners' application for calling the records from the official respondents was rejected in the year 2022 and thereafter, the petitioners have approached the respondents and got the desired documents, however, the same is sought to be filed at the stage when the final arguments are in progress before the learned trial court.

8. This Court is firmly of the view that if there is any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial court for not calling the requisite documents from the official respondents, the petitioners should have assailed the validity of that order and if the petitioners have accepted the same and approached the respondents for getting the records, then after getting those documents from the official respondents, the same should have been filed before the learned trial court at the earliest and they should not have waited for the suit to proceed for final arguments. Since the learned trial court has proceeded with the matter and the final arguments are in progress in the suit proceedings, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 r/w section 151 CPC.

9. In the humble opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned trial court on 11.05.2023 does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

10. Stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top