Rajasthan High Court
Mahendra Prasad, Son Of Kailash ... vs Rajendra Kumar Son Of Ram Sahai on 5 April, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5102/2022
Mahendra Prasad, Son Of Kailash Chand, Aged About 52 Years,
Resident Of Rajgarh, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajendra Kumar Son Of Ram Sahai, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of Rajgarh Alwar (Deceased) Through Lrs
2. Pradeep Kumar Sharma Son Of Rajendra Kumar, Aged
About 50 Years, Resident Of Rajgarh, District Alwar
3. Meenakshi Sharma, W/o Ramesh Chand, D/o Rajendra
Kumar, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Rajgarh, District
Alwar
4. Gargi D/o Late Lokesh Sharma, Aged About 16 Years,
Through Elder Brother Of Deceased Lokesh Sharma (Tau)
Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Resident Of Rajgarh, District
Alwar
5. Aishwarya Sharma D/o Late Lokesh Sharma, Aged About
15 Years, Through Elder Brother Of Deceased Lokesh
Sharma (Tau) Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Resident Of
Rajgarh, District Alwar
6. Aman S/o Late Lokesh Sharma, Aged About 13 Years,
Through Elder Brother Of Deceased Lokesh Sharma (Tau)
Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Resident Of Rajgarh, District
Alwar
7. Ramji Lal, Son Of Roop Narayan, Aged About 53 Years,
R/o Rajgarh, District Alwar
8. Smt. Dropdi Devi Wife Of Ramji Lal, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Rajgarh, District Alwar
9. Kailash Chandra Son Of Ram Sahai, R/o Rajgarh, District
Alwar (Since Deceased)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
(2 of 4) [CW-5102/2022]
Order
05/04/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order
dated 14.03.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No.1,
Rajgarh (Alwar) whereby, an application filed by the respondents-
plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC, has been allowed.
The facts in brief are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a
suit for permanent injunction claiming their rights in the suit
property on the basis of a sale deed dated 14.10.1998. During the
course of the evidence, they filed an application under Order 7
Rule 14(3) of the CPC seeking permission of the Court to place the
sale deed dated 14.10.1998 on record which has been allowed by
the learned Senior Civil Judge No.1, Rajgarh (Alwar) vide order
dated 14.03.2022, impugned herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order of the
learned trial court submitted that no reason was assigned by the
plaintiffs for not producing the document for a period of 21 years
since the date of filing of this suit and it has been produced just to
fill in lacuna in evidence which is impermissible. He submitted that
on an earlier occasion also, an application dated 05.02.2004 under
Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC was filed by predecessor-in-title of
the plaintiffs but at that time also, the aforesaid document was
not submitted alongwith. He, therefore, prays that order
impugned be quashed and set aside. He, in support of the
submissions, relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of
India in the case of Bagai Construction (M/s.) Thro' Its Proprietor
Mr. Lalit Bagai vs. M/s Gupta Building Material Store: 2013 DNJ
(SC) 314.
(3 of 4) [CW-5102/2022]
Heard. Considered.
Learned trial court has allowed the application filed by the
respondents-petitioners conscious of the belated stage at which it
was preferred in view of the fact that the sale deed dated
14.10.1998 is basis of suit filed by them and was essential for just
and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter. It
also considered the fact that plaintiffs did not file the document
with their earlier application dated 05.02.2004 filed under Order 7
Rule 14(3) of the CPC. The application has been allowed in the
interest of justice and for delay, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- has been
imposed on the plaintiffs.
This Court does not find the order impugned to be suffering
from any patent jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference
of this under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. It is trite law that whenever substantial
justice is pitted against procedural law, substantial justice should
get precedence. Undeniably, the sale deed dated 14.10.1998 is
the basis of suit and its availability on record is essential for just
and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter.
Learned trial court has passed the impugned order in
exercise of its judicious discretion and hence, does not warrant
any interference of this Court.
The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bagai
Construction (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner having
been rendered in somewhat different facts and circumstances. In
that case, an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC was
filed at the stage of pronouncement of judgment; whereas, herein,
plaintiffs' evidence is going on.
(4 of 4) [CW-5102/2022]
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
AMIT KUMAR /90
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
