Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Ghanshyam Singh – Appellant
Versus
Nagar Palika Jaitaran – Respondent
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
Timely filing of documents is crucial in legal proceedings; failure to do so may result in dismissal of applications as meritless.
Documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be introduced later without court permission, emphasizing the necessity of timely submission under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
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.
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 upheld the trial court's rejection of applications for document production and witness recall due to lack of demonstrated relevance and procedural compliance.
Point of Law : If procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to adversary party, Court must lean towards doing substantial justice.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
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
