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

2023 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 17340

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SUKH SAGAR BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW/15482/2022



The court has the discretion to reopen evidence even after it has been closed, if sufficient cause is shown.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 17 RULE 11 - REOPENING OF EVIDENCE - [The court allowed the petitioner-plaintiff to submit evidence despite the trial court closing their right to do so, considering the delay caused by the respondents' applications and the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff had not been properly informed by their counsel.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of order of sub division and mandatory injunction. The suit was initially decreed by the trial court, but on appeal, the decree was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., which was dismissed by the trial court. The respondents then filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The trial court then closed the petitioner-plaintiff's right to submit evidence, and the petitioner-plaintiff's application to reopen the evidence was also dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, set aside the orders of the trial court closing the petitioner-plaintiff's right to submit evidence and dismissing the application to reopen the evidence, and granted the petitioner-plaintiff one month to submit all its evidence.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in closing the petitioner-plaintiff's right to submit evidence and dismissing the application to reopen the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court erred in closing the petitioner-plaintiff's right to submit evidence and dismissing the application to reopen the evidence, considering the delay caused by the respondents' applications and the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff had not been properly informed by their counsel.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, set aside the orders of the trial court closing the petitioner-plaintiff's right to submit evidence and dismissing the application to reopen the evidence, and granted the petitioner-plaintiff one month to submit all its evidence.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17342/2022

Sukh Sagar Buildcon Private Limited, (Previously Known As

Sapphire Ceremic And Glass Private Limited) Office 201, Laxmi

Complex, M.i. Road, Jaipur Through Director Shri Surendra

Kumar Baradia S/o Late Shri Sagar Mal Baradia, Aged 63 Years,

R/o Plot No. 20, Baradia Colony, Museum Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat

Jaipur

2.

Deputy Secretary - Third, Urban Development

Department, Secretariat Jaipur

3.

Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Through Its Chief Executive

Officer, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur

4.

Commissioner (Planning) And Secretary, Bhawan Anugya

And Sankarm Samiti , Nagar Nigam-5, Office Lalkothi,

Tonk Road, Jaipur

5.

Senior Town Planner, Nagar Nigam Lalkothi, Tonk Road,

Jaipur

6.

Shriniwas Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o

220, Navjeevn Upvan, Daddho Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari

Road, Jaipur

7.

Ambrish Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o

220, Navjeevn Upvan, Daddho Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari

Road, Jaipur

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15482/2022

Sukh Sagar Buildcon Private Limited, (Previously Known As

Sapphire Ceremic And Glass Private Limited) Office 201, Laxmi

Complex, M.i. Road, Jaipur Through Director Shri Surendra

Kumar Baradia S/o Late Shri Sagar Mal Baradia, Aged 63 Years,

R/o Plot No. 20, Baradia Colony, Museum Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat

(2 of 5)

[CW-17342/2022]

Jaipur

2.

Deputy Secretary - Third, Urban Development

Department, Secretariat Jaipur

3.

Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive

Officer, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur

4.

Commissioner (Planning) And Secretary, Bhawan Anugya

And Sankarm Samiti , Nagar Nigam-5, Office Lalkothi,

Tonk Road, Jaipur

5.

Senior Town Planner, Nagar Nigam Lalkothi, Tonk Road,

Jaipur

6.

Shriniwas Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o

220, Navjeevn Upvan, Daddho Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari

Road, Jaipur

7.

Ambrish Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o

220, Navjeevn Upvan, Daddho Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari

Road, Jaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. G.P. Sharma

Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

03/01/2023

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff

challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 whereby the evidence of

the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by the trial Court as well as the

order dated 16.11.2022 whereby the application submitted by the

petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. for reopening of

evidence was dismissed by the trial Court.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a

suit for declaration and cancellation of order of sub division and

mandatory injunction. Initially the suit filed by the petitioner-

(3 of 5)

[CW-17342/2022]

plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated

22.07.2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,

the respondent Nos.6 & 7 filed Civil First Appeal No.459/2014

before this court which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of

this court and matter was remanded back to the learned trial

Court vide order dated 21.01.2019 and the petitioner-plaintiff filed

amended plaint and impleaded the respondent Nos.6 & 7 as

defendants in the suit proceeding, thereafter during pendency of

the suit proceeding, the respondent Nos.6 & 7 filed application

under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. before the trial Court which was

dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.09.2021. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.6 & 7 filed S.B.

Civil Revision Petition No.138/2021 before this court which was

dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order datd

16.02.2022 and directed the trial Court to decide the suit within a

period of nine

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