[2025:RJ-JD:33536]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9994/2016 Devendra Singh son of Shri Jangir Singh, aged about 34 years, resident of Chak 93GB, Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar ----Petitioner Versus Kulvinder Kaur wife of Shri Devendra Singh daughter of Shri Karam Singh, resident of Ward No.10, Sangaria Tehsil Sangaria District Hanumangarh.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

29/07/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 for taking certain documents on record was rejected.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for adjudication are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent filed a reply, and thereafter, the matter was pending for evidence of petitioner. The petitioner filed his affidavit as examination-in-chief on 11.02.2015, after which the matter was transferred from the Family Court to the Court of Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh.

3. At this stage, after seeking some adjournments for producing evidence, the petitioner filed the present application dated 02.01.2016 seeking permission to place on record certified copies of court proceedings and also proceedings reflecting the compromise attempted between the parties. The petitioner clarified that no other documents were sought to be placed on record.

4. The respondent filed a reply opposing the application, contending that the documents were irrelevant for adjudication of the present controversy and objected to the same on the ground of delay in filing the application, praying for its dismissal.

5. The learned trial court, vide order dated 02.05.2016, dismissed the application without considering the merits or the relevance of the documents, solely on the ground of delay.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion to file the application earlier since the affidavit was already filed and the matter was transferred from one court to another. The petitioner further contends that the application was filed immediately before his cross-examination. The documents sought to be taken on record are certified copies of court proceedings and are relevant for adjudication. The genuineness of these documents has not been disputed. Therefore, the learned trial court erred in dismissing the application merely on the ground of delay.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and contends that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the delay, and thus the trial court rightly dismissed the application.

8. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 02.05.2016 is a cryptic order, failing to assign any reasons regarding the relevancy of the documents or as whether the petitioner could be permitted to take the documents on record or not. Furthermore, the reason assigned concerning the delay does not stand to reason, as the application was filed post submission of the affidavit in examination-in-chief and immediately after the case was transferred, without any change in the status of trial. The documents, being certified copies of court proceedings, are evidently relevant and there was no justifiable reason for the trial court to refuse to take them on record merely on the ground of alleged delay. The application was filed within time and ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of delay.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.05.2016 is here