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 (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 10:56:31 PM) (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- (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 10:56:31 PM)
(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 months. The learned trial Court when the petitioner- plaintiff failed to submit its evidence, closed the right to submit the evidence vide order dated 12.10.2022. The petitioner-plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for reopening of its evidence which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 16.11.2022, hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitoner-plaintiff challenging the orders dated 12.10.2022 & 16.11.2022.
Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the evidence could not be produced before the trial Court as the counsel appearing for them failed to inform them with regard to submitting of their evidence however submitted that one last opportunity be granted to them to submit their complete evidence before the trial Court on payment of cost. (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 10:56:31 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-17342/2022] Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submits that the petitioner-plaintiff wants to delay the suit proceedings. Counsel further submits that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner-plaintiff for reopening of the evidence. Counsel further submits that as per the provisions of Order 17(1) only three opportunities can be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to submit their evidence, however in the present case, five opportunities have been granted by the trial Court and prayed for dismissed of the writ petition.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs deserves to be allowed for the reasons firstly, a bare perusal of the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the learned trial Court clearly shows that the trial Court in a hurried manner in one month's time given five opportunities to the petitioner-plaintiff for submitting the evidence, secondly, the matter got delayed before the learned trial Court as the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 have filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. which was dismissed in the month of September, 2021 and thereafter, the respondents Nos.6 & 7 have also filed revision petition before this court which was ultimately decided by this court in the month of February, 2022, thereafter, the suit proceeding started. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it just and proper to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents Nos.6 & 7. The petitioner-plaintiff is allowed to submit all its evidence before the learned trial Court within a period of one (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 10:56:31 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-17342/2022] month from today. The orders dated 16.11.2022 and 12.10.2022 are set aside.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J Jyoti/110-111 (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 10:56:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)