Kalu Lal vs Smt.Champa Devi And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 10109 Raj

(1 of 3) [CW-3895/2017]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3895/2017

Kalu Lal S/o Sh. Badri Lal, B/c Bishnoi, aged about 24 R/o Samelia, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Champa Devi W/o Shobhalal, aged about 48 years, R/o Naya Samelia, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

2. Smt. Prem Devi W/o Sh. Bhawani Ram, aged about 54 years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Naya Samelia, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

3. Smt. Badam Devi W/o Sh. Poonam Chand, aged about 42 years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Naya Samelia, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

4. Smt. Sushila Devi D/o Sh. Mangilal, aged about 44 years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Naya Samelia, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

5. Shobha Lal S/o Mangilal Bishnoi, aged about 56 years, R/o Naya Samelia, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

6. Poonam Chand S/o Mangilal Bishnoi, aged about 46 years, R/o Naya Samelia, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

7. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Bhilwara (Raj.).

8.    Sub Registrar, Bhilwara (Raj.)
                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi


       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
                        Order

02/08/2022

     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 01.03.2017 (Annex. 4) passed by District & Sessions Judge,

Bhilwara (Raj.) whereby the application preferred by the petitioner

under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC for taking certain documents

on record was rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

trial court committed an error while rejecting the application as

(2 of 3) [CW-3895/2017]

the documents which are sought to be produced, goes to the root

cause of the matter and at the stage of filing the documents, the

relevancy of the documents cannot be adjudged by the learned

trial court.

Learned counsel further submits that since grandfather of

the petitioner was having sufficiency of the funds and was rather

lending money to the persons in need, therefore, there was no

question of selling the plot in question. He submits that the

learned trial court has committed an error while passing the order

dated 01.03.2017, whereby the application for taking the

documents placed on record as Annexure-1 to 5 with the

application was rejected. To buttress his contention, learned

counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this court

reported in Western Law Cases (Rajasthan) 2000 (1)

rendered in the case of Deepak Kumar Suthar and Another

V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. He, therefore, prays that the

present writ petition may be allowed and the application preferred

by the petitioner under order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC may be allowed

by giving a direction to the learned trial court to take on record

the documents Annexure 1 to 5 annexed with the application.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned trial court is a

reasoned order and the learned trial court rightly rejected the

application so preferred by the petitioner as the documents which

are sought to be produced on record are not even remotely

connected with the dispute in the present case. Therefore, there is

no relevancy of those documents before the learned trial court in

the suit proceedings pending before it. He, therefore prays that

the writ petition may be dismissed.

(3 of 3) [CW-3895/2017]

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the order dated 01.03.2017.

The learned trial court has rejected the application of the

petitioner only on the ground that the documents which are

sought to be produced before the learned trial court are not

relevant and are not connected with the subject matter of the suit

in issue. The learned trial court has found the documents as

irrelevant and, therefore, the application so preferred by the

petitioner has been rejected. This Court feels that the relevancy or

sufficiency of the evidence cannot be adjudged by the learned trial

court at the time of filing the same as the person relying upon

those documents will show the relevancy of those documents at

the appropriate stage. In any case, this Court feels that no

prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the documents filed

by the petitioner along with the application under Order 7 Rule

14(3) of CPC as Annexure-1 to 5 are taken on record.

In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is

allowed and the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by District &

Sessions Judge, Bhilwara (Raj.) is quashed to the extent of

denying the petitioner to bring on record the documents

Annexure-1 to 5 produced with the application and the application

to that extent is allowed. The learned trial court is directed to take

the documents Annexure- 1 to 5 placed on record by the

petitioner along with the application and proceed in accordance

with law.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

30-KashishS/AnilS-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)