Rajasthan High Court
Shri Kanaram Son Of Bhorilal vs Shri Govindram Son Of Pramanand on 9 February, 2021
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1382/2021
1. Shri Kanaram Son Of Bhorilal, Aged About 60 Years,
1/1. Smt. Nangi Devi Wife Of Late Shri Kanaram (Deceased),
1/2. Ramdayal Son Of Late Shri Kanaram,
1/3. Ramavatar Son Of Late Shri Kanaram,
1/4. Sitaram Son Of Late Shri Kanaram,
1/5. Ramulal Alias Ram Narayan Son Of Late Shri Kanaram,
1/6. Giriraj Son Of Late Shri Kanaram,
2. Shri Jeetaram Son Of Shri Shyopal, Aged About 30 Years,
All Resident Of Village God Kawas, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Govindram Son Of Pramanand, Aged About 70 Years,
1/1. Shri Rajendra Meena Son Of Late Shri Govindram,
Aged About 23 Years,
1/2. Saraswati Meena Daughter Of Late Shri Govindram,
Aged About 21 Years,
All are Resident Of 7A Saheed Colony, Modal Town-C,
Behind New Bright Land School, Malviya, Jaipur
2. Shri Gayanaram Son Of Shri Paramaram, Aged About 72
Years,
2/1. Smt. Dhakha Wife Of Late Shri Gayanaram,
2/2. Raju Son Of Late Shri Gayanaram,
All are Resident Of Village God Kawas, Tehsil Chaksu,
District, Jaipur
2/3. Smt. Suman Wife Of Vishanpal Daughter Of Late Shri
Gayanaram, Resident Of Arjun Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur
3. Shri Cheeterram Son Of Shri Narayan, Aged About 45
Years,
4. Shri Moolchand Son Of Shri Jeeva, Aged About 50 Years,
5. Smt. Lali Devi Wife Of Shri Gangashay,
6. Smt. Manbhar Devi Wife Of Shri Lallu Lal,
7. Smt. Lachma Devi Wife Of Shri Mannalal,
(Downloaded on 11/02/2021 at 10:17:19 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-1382/2021]
8. Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Shri Ram Prasad,
9. Smt Rupa Devi Wife Of Shri Nathulal,
9/1. Rukmani Devi Wife Of Shri Kalyan, Aged About 61
Years,
9/2. Manni Wife Of Shri Ramkishan, Aged About 55 Years,
9/3. Ramlal Son Of Late Shri Nathulal, Aged About 65
Years,
9/4. Chuttanlal Son Of Late Shri Nathulal, Aged About 51
Years,
All are Resident Of Gram Raghunathpura Alias God
Kawas, Post Ramnagar, Tehsil Kothkhawda, District Jaipur
303908
10. Smt. Kali Devi Wife Of Shri Mahadev, Resident Of Village
God Kawas, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur
10/1. Rewad Son Of Mahadev, Resident Of Village God
Kawas, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur
10/2. Ramniwas Son Of Mahadev, Resident Of Village God
Kawas, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur
10/3. Radha Wife Of Mahadev, Village Guda, Post Bassi,
Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur
10/4. Geeta Wife Of Sitaram, Resident Of Village
Gopirampura, Panchyat Barkheda, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur
11. Smt. Bachi Devi Wife Of Shri Gopi, Resident Of God
Kawas, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur
11/1. Girraj Son Of Shri Gopi, Resident Of God Kawas,
Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur
11/2. Ramu Son Of Shri Gopi, Resident Of God Kawas,
Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur
11/3. Smt. Kamla Wife Of Shri Shambhu Lal, Kabir
Colony, Khatwa Road, Near Dadudayal, Lalsot Dausa
11/4. Smt. Shanti Wife Of Shri Sawal Ram Meena, Village
Ramlpura, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Ramgarhpachwara,
Dausa
11/5. Smt. Chota Devi Wife Of Karanam Meena, Village
Beed, Post Lawan, Tehsil Lawan, District- Dausa
12. Smt. Ganga Devi Wife Of Shri Mool Chand, Aged Adult,
Resident Of Village God Kawas, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur
(Downloaded on 11/02/2021 at 10:17:19 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-1382/2021]
12/1. Moolchand Meena S/o Shri Jeewa Ram Meena,
Resident Of God Kawas, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur
12/2. Raju Wife Of Ram Sahay, Jadishpura And Bakliya,
Pan. Kheraraniwas, Tehsil Kotkhawda,
12/3. Smt. Kota Wife Of Shri Chotelal Meena, Village
Girdharilalpura, Tehsil Chaksu
12/4. Smt. Prem Wife Of Puranlal Meena, B-17, Ganesh
Nagar, Shoupur, Pratapnagar, Sanganer, Jaipur
12/5. Smt. Manju Wife Of Kailash Chand Meena, B-17,
Ganesh Nagar, Shoupur, Pratapnagar, Sanganer, Jaipur
12/6. Smt. Bhuli Devi Wife Of Suresh Kumar Meena, 50
Bharat Vihar, Jamdoli, Agra Road, Jaipur
12/7. Smt. Dhapu Alias Vimla Devi Wife Of Girraj Prasad
Meena, 191, Brij Vihar, Jagatpura, Sanganer, Jaipur
....Respondents-Defendants
13. Shri Harsahay Son Of Bhorilal, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Village God Ka Was , Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur
14. Shri Badri Son Of Harinarayan, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident Of Village God Ka Was , Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur
----Proforma Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
09/02/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-
plaintiffs (for short, 'the plaintiffs') under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 17.2.2020 passed by
the Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs
under Order 18 Rule 3 readwith Section 151 CPC has been
(4 of 6) [CW-1382/2021]
dismissed and the plaintiffs have been denied opportunity to lead
evidence in rebuttal.
Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for
specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.5.2005,
declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents-
defendants (for short, 'the defendants'). During the pendancy of
the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 18 Rule 3
readwith Section 151 CPC, which came to be dismissed by the
Trial Court vide order dated 17.2.2020. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Advocate
Pratap Singh Gurjar, who identified the signatures on the
agreement to sell dated 31.5.2005 was to be produced before the
Trial Court on 23.1.2020 in rebuttal evidence, but on account of
contesting the election by his relative, on the said date aforesaid
witness could not be produced before the Trial Court in rebuttal
evidence. Resultantly, the Trial Court vide its order dated
23.1.2020 closed the plaintiffs' right to produce evidence in
rebuttal. The plaintiffs moved an application under Order 18 Rule
3 CPC before the Trial Court for giving an opportunity to produce
evidence in rebuttal, but the same has been dismissed by the Trial
Court vide order dated 17.2.2020 despite the fact that just and
sufficient reason was given for non appearance of the witness
before the Trial Court on 23.1.2020. He further submits that if the
evidence of the aforesaid witness in rebuttal is not taken, the
plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and injustice would be
caused to them.
Heard. Considered.
Admittedly the matter was posted on 23.1.2020 for
producing evidence in rebuttal by the plaintiffs, but since no
(5 of 6) [CW-1382/2021]
witness appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs in rebuttal evidence,
the matter was posted for final arguments on 6.2.2020 taking into
consideration the fact that the suit was old one. The learned
Tribunal while dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 3
CPC relied on the judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Jhuthi Devi Versus Rasool Mohd. and
Others reported in 2013 (2) WLC (Raj.) 319 as also Jai Narayan
and others Versus Jeev Raj and others reported in 2012 (2)
DNJ (Raj.) 580.
In the case of Jhuthi Devi (supra), it was held by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court that further opportunity of leading
the evidence in rebuttal could not be allowed to a party on the
vague ground of "injustice" when such party first leading evidence
has failed to reserve its right of leading rebuttal evidence either by
way of application in writing or by way of making specific oral
request recorded by the court before the commencement of
evidence.
In the case of Jai Narayan (supra), it was held by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court that when plaintiff did not reserve
the right to lead evidence in rebuttal while closing evidence and
before the other party began its evidence, trial court rightly
rejected the permission to lead evidence in rebuttal.
The Trial Court further observed that in the application
filed by the plaintiffs, it was nowhere mentioned as to in relation
to which issue, evidence in rebuttal was sought to be produced.
From the affidavit of the so-called witness, it was apparent that
averments were made in relation to issues no. 1 and 2, with
regard to which the plaintiffs had already produced the evidence.
Issues no. 6, 7 and 8 were legal issues and in relation to which no
(6 of 6) [CW-1382/2021]
new evidence was adduced by the defendants. In this view of the
matter, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the plaintiffs' application.
I am in agreement with the findings given by the trial
court in dismissing the plaintiffs' application under Order 18 Rule 3
CPC, moreso when the suit was filed in the year 2006, more than
14 years have passed therefrom and the suit is pending for final
arguments.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this writ
petition and the same being bereft of any merit, is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DILIP KHANDELWAL /8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
