Jugal Kishore S/O Prahlad Ji Patel ... vs Sitaram S/O Anandi Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 1101 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1101 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 28 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Jugal Kishore S/O Prahlad Ji Patel ... vs Sitaram S/O Anandi Lal on 28 January, 2022

Bench: Sameer Jain

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2556/2019

1.      Jugal Kishore S/o Prahlad Ji Patel (Deceased), R/o Village
        Kolana,     Tehsil       Pipalda,    Distt.      Kota.    Through   Legal
        Representatives.
2.      Rammurti W/o Jugal Kishore, R/o Village Kolana, Tehsil
        Pipalda, Distt. Kota. Raj.
3.      Vijay Laxmi D/o Jugal Kishore, R/o Village Kolana, Tehsil
        Pipalda, Distt. Kota. Raj.
4.      Mona Patel D/o Jugal Kishore, R/o Village Kolana, Tehsil
        Pipalda, Distt. Kota. Raj.
5.      Chetan Patel S/o Jugal Kishore, R/o Village Kolana, Tehsil
        Pipalda, Distt. Kota. Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
Sitaram S/o Anandi Lal, R/o Village Dheepari Kali Sindh, Tehsil
Pipalda, Distt. Kota
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Sajid Ali through VC
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Vivek Choudhary through VC



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                      Order

28/01/2022

Counsel for the petitioners has invoked provisions of Article 227 of

the Constitution of India and has filed the present writ petition being

aggrieved of order dated 20.12.2018 passed by learned Additional

District Judge No.2, Kota in Civil Suit No. 14/2000 by which the

application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 1(2) and

Rule 2(2) of CPC for recalling the witness has been dismissed.

The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that he has filed a

suit for specific performance in the year 2000 wherein some agreement

(2 of 4) [CW-2556/2019]

was disputed as evidence of which he has filed a request to seek

opinion of hand writing expert as well as opinion from FSL. As per him

the said application is pending. In support of his claim he has filed one

expert opinion of private hand writing expert and his application was

allowed but that hand writing expert, on his request, has not turned out

in the Court. He requested by way of impugned application before the

Court that he may be called as witness.

Per contra, the counsel for the respondent submits that on

07.02.2017, the evidence was closed. It was only on 06.09.2017 that

the application was filed which has been dismissed vide order impugned

by the learned Trial Court holding as under:-

^^mHk;i{kksa dks lquk] i=koyh dk xgurk ls voyksdu fd;k x;k izdj.k esa nukad 07-02-2017 dks oknh dh lk{; lekIr gksus ds mijkar izdj.k lk{; izfroknh gsrq fnukad 06-03-2017 dks fu;r fd;k x;kA rr~i'pkr fnukad 06-09-2017 dks [email protected] dh vksj ls izkFkZuk&i= varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 14 lh-ih-lh- dk izLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr izkFkZuk&i= U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 18-11-2017 dh vknsf'kdk ds ek/;e ls Lohdkj djrs gq, nLrkost fjdkWMZ ij ysus dh vuqefr iznku dh xbZA mDr nLrkostkr dks iznf'kZr djkus ds laca/k esa izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= varxZr /kkjk 151 lh-ih-lh- fnukad 21-05- 2018 dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k x;k fd oknh vkxkeh is'kh ij lanfHkZr nLrkostkr dks iznf'kZr djk;s tkus gsrq ftu Hkh lk{khx.k dh lk{; ys[kc} djuk pkgrs gSa] mudh eq[; ijh{kk esa 'kiFk&i= vko';d :i ls izLrqr djsa rFkk izdj.k iqu% lk{; oknh gsrq fnukad 05-07-2018 dks fu;r fd;k x;kA fnukad 05-07-2018 dks oknh dh vksj ls Jherh jkeewfrZ dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr~ [email protected] dh vksj ls mDr izkFkZuk&i= varxZr vkns'k 16 fu;e 1 ¼2½ lh-ih-lh- ds rgr izLrqr fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa oknh dks lk{; gsrq i;kZIr volj iwoZ esa iznku fd;s x;s FksA rRi'pkr izfroknh dh lk{; iw.kZ gksus ds mijkar iqu% oknh dks lk{; gsrq volj iznku fd;k x;kA U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 21-05-2018 ds vkns'k lhek rd volj iznku fd;k x;kA U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 21- 05-2018 ds vkns'k ds ek/;e ls oknh dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd nLrkostkr iznf'kZr djkus dh lhek rd tks Hkh lk{; og izLrqr djuk pkgs] mudh eq[; ijh{kk dks 'kiFk&i= izLrqr dj ldrk gS vFkkZr oknh dks Lo;a ds Lrj ij lk{; izLrqr fd;k tkuk FkkA bl Lrj ij vkns'k 16 fu;e 3 lhihlh dk mYys[k djuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

(3 of 4) [CW-2556/2019]

^^U;k;ky; dkj.k vfHkfyf[kr djrs g, i{kdkj dks fdlh ,sls lk{kh dh tks mifu;e ¼1½ esa fufnZ"V lwph esa of.kZr ukeksa ls fHkUu gks] pkgs U;k;ky; dh ekQZr leu }kjk ;k vU;Fkk cqykus dh vuqefr dsoy rHkh ns ldsxk] tc ,slk i{kdkj mDr lwph esa ,sls lk{kh ds uke dk o.kZu djus esa yksi ds fy, i;kZIr dkj.k nf'kZr dj ns** pwafd izdj.k esa oknh dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; lwph izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj lk{; gsrq i;kZIr volj iznku djus ds mijkar oknh dh vksj ls mDr izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k gS] tks dsoyek= izdj.k esa foyEc dkfjr djus ds mn~ns'; izLrqr fd;k tkuk n`f"Vxr gksrk gSA vr% mijksDr leLr foospu ds vk/kkj ij oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= varxZr vkns'k 16 vkns'k 1 fu;e ¼2½ lhihlh [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLr cgl izkFkZuk&i= gsrq fnukad 08-01-

2019 dks is'k gksA**

The respondent counsel submitted that learned Trial Court has

given enough justified reason for rejection of the application.

This Court has gone through the records of the writ petition,

arguments submitted by the respective counsels, one judgment cited at

bar by the petitioners i.e. Padum Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

reported in AIR 2020 SC 447.

On perusal and consideration of the same, this Court is of the

view that Article 227 has a limited jurisdiction only in the matters where

there is an error apparent on the face of records that the court should

intervene though in the case in hand the learned Trial Court below has

given enough justified reasons.