Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
Sikander Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mander Singh – Respondent
Order :
1. The instant writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.09.2024 (Annex.10) passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikaranpur (‘learned trial court’) in Civil Misc. Case No.26/2024 (Annex.2), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC has been rejected.
2. The instant writ has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or directions:-
(i) The impugned order dated 10.09.2024 (P/10) passed by the Senior Civil, Judge, Srikaranpur, in Civil Misc case no. 26/24 CIS no. 26/2024 (Mander Singh vs. Sikaner Singh & ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The application dated 02.11.2023 (P/8) filed by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 12, 14 read with Section 151 of CPC may kindly be allowed and the respondent-plaintiff Mander Singh be directed LO produce the original adoption deed dated 15.04.1966 and gun license no. 246 dated 21.07.1983, which is in his possession before the learned trail court.
(iii) Any other appropriate
The court affirmed that a party cannot be compelled to produce documents not in their possession, clarifying the procedural requirements for document discovery under the Code of Civil Procedure.
An adoption deed, once registered, is presumed valid under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act unless disproved, and courts must provide reasons for any conclusions drawn against its....
The court has discretion to allow late submission of documents if necessary for justice, despite prior availability of photocopies.
Judicial officers should not be impleaded in writ petitions, and applications under Order XI must be timely and relevant to the case.
Compliance with mandatory requirements for summoning documents from a public officer and the limitations of Order XVI, Rules 1 and 5 of the CPC.
Summoning public officers under Order XVI, Rule 1 of CPC cannot be invoked by private parties without adducing proper and relevant evidence to prove their case.
The court recognized the necessity to resolve the validity of the adoption deed despite earlier failures to present competent evidence, underscoring the importance of proving authenticity in property....
(1) High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority. (2) Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of d....
The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
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
