Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
SMT SHANTI DEVI W/O SHRI RAMKARAN – Appellant
Versus
TEJPAL SAINI S/O LATE SHRI DEVI LAL SAINI – Respondent
CW / 19126 / 2024
Order :
1. Instant civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in civil suit No. 106/1996 (17/97) whereby the said court dismissed the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in which defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking document on record. He mentioned that another suit related to the disputed property was filed by the respondent No. 1-Tejpal in the year 1990, in which age of respondent No. 1-Tejpal was mentioned as 28 years and in the suit in hand which was filed in the year 1996 it was mentioned as 20 years. Defendant wanted to take documents on record but the trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the said document are necessary for the adjudication of the case. So, order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the application filed by the defendant be allowed.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order.
4. While dismissing the application filed by the defendant, trial Court clearly mentioned that the documents filed by the defendant were of the year 1990 and he had knowledge of the documents at the time of filing of the instant suit in the year 1996. Previously, he had also filed similar application in the year 2004 and said application was dismissed in the year 2010. Defendant wanted to cause delay in the trial Court proceedings. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
5. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
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.
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 established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
The Court's decision emphasized that the documents sought to be placed on record were already referred to in the plaint, and the defendants had sufficient opportunity to deal with them, justifying th....
Point of Law : If procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to adversary party, Court must lean towards doing substantial justice.
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
