Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Subhash Chandra Bapna S/o Late Shri Sajjan Singh Bapna - Appellant
Versus
Legal Heirs of Rajendra - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21178/2024
Decided On : 05-03-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 14 - Writ petition challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting applications to take documents on record - The court emphasized that documents must be presented with the plaint, and failure to do so without leave of the court results in rejection - The Trial Court partially allowed the application for documents already submitted with the plaint. (Paras 1, 6, 20)
(B) Legal Principle - The court reiterated that documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be introduced later without court permission, and relevance must be established. (Paras 12, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a suit for partition and injunction in 2012, later seeking to introduce documents through applications under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, which were rejected by the Trial Court. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's decision to reject the applications was upheld, as the documents were not referenced in the plaint and were sought to be introduced at a late stage. (Paras 20)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the applications for documents not mentioned in the plaint and the relevance of those documents. (Paras 8, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Trial Court acted correctly in rejecting the applications, emphasizing the necessity of including documents in the plaint and the lack of justification for their late introduction. (Paras 20)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2024 (Annex.13) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer (‘Trial Court’) seeking following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that-
(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-13) passedby the learned Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer may kindly be set aside and the applications dated 17.9.2024 and 1.10.2024 under Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code for taking on record the documents so submitted with these applications by way of Form No.3 and the application dated 7.11.2024 under Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code of the plaintiffs-petitioners to take on record the copies of documents annexed with the said application by way of Form No.3 was allowed only partially vide order dated 28.11.2024 may kindly be rejected and set aside.
(b) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioners.
(c) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioners.”
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit on 19.07.2012 for partition, damages and permanent injunction in relation to the disputed property i.e. ‘Patwa Havelies’ the neighbourhood whereof were mention in paragraph 4 of the plaint. In the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs stated that since the plaintiffs No.1 to 7 were residing out of Jaisalmer in connection with their business, therefore, the petitioners No.1 to 7 executed a special power of attorney in favour of plaintiff No.8 authorizing him to file and contest the suit on their behalf. In the plaint, the petitioners/plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs and defendants are the joint owner and in possession of the suit property, which may be partitioned by meets and bounds.
3. After service of the summons, the defendant No.16 filed his written statement while denying the averments made in the plaint, however, admitted the fact that they all are descendants of Late Sh. Guman Chand Bapna. On behalf of defendant Department of Archaeology and Musems, Bikaner Circle, Bikaner written statement was also filed while denying the averments of the plaint with a prayer to dismiss the suit. Other defendant viz. Surendra Kumar also filed his written statement raising almost similar submissions.
4. As per the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 30.10.2019, the learned Trial Court framed nine issues.
5. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC dated 17.09.2024 (Annex-7) with a prayer to take on record certain documents viz. Letters of District Collector dated 12.11.1975, Letter of Land Acquisition officer dated 23.08.1991, Letter dated 03.07.1980, District Collector Letter dated 21.04.1987, Minutes of Meeting of the proceedings drawn before the District Collector dated 24.01.1974, Government letter dated 15.04.1994 and 06.07.1976 along with Form No.3. The said application was replied by the defendants vide their reply dated 15.10.2024. The petitioners/plaintiffs also filed another application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC dated 01.10.2024 (Annex.9) seeking to place on record certain documents, which application was also replied to by the defendants vide their reply dated 15.10.2024. The petitioners/plaintiffs yet filed another application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC on 07.11.2024 (Annex.11) along with which certain documents with respect to proceedings initiated by one of the shareholder of the property were sought to be produced on record. The petitioners/ plaintiffs stated that these documents were obtained by them from the office of District Collector under the Right to Information Act, which were received by them on 06.11.2024. The said application was replied by the defendants with a prayer to reject
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.
Defendants' failure to show due diligence and timely filing of documents justifies dismissal of their applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and no grounds were shown for High Court intervent....
The court established that a defendant must produce relevant documents at the time of the written statement and provide valid reasons for any subsequent applications to introduce documents; failure t....
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not sitting as an appellate court over the orders passed by the subordinate courts.
Judicial officers should not be impleaded in writ petitions, and applications under Order XI must be timely and relevant to the case.
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
