Bheem Singh S/O Shri Birju Singh vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 537 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15024/2019

Bheem Singh S/o Shri Birju Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Plat
No. 613, Ward No. 6, Ganesh Nagar, Sevar Road, Cold Store Ke
Piche, District Bharatpur (Raj.), At Present Driver, Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, Lohagarh Agar, Bharatpur.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     Rajasthan     State      Road       Transport        Corporation,        Jaipur
       Through Managing Director Transport Marg, Jaipur.
2.     Chief    Manager,         Rajasthan          State        Road       Transport
       Corporation, Lohagarh Agar, Bharatpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola with Mr. Pavan Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Reserved on 04/01/2022

Pronounced on 21 /01/2022

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the

impugned order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Additional Civil

Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan,

Jaipur in Civil Suit No.27/2010 whereby the application filed by

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

on record has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that one suit against the respondent-

corporation for mandatory relief was filed by the petitioner

(2 of 4) [CW-15024/2019]

wherein an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for

taking on record certain copies of the duty chart dated 28.06.2009

and 29.06.2009.

3. Against the same, the respondent-corporation filed a protest

that the application has been filed for delaying adjudication, the

application was not filed at relevant time and the evidence of

plaintiff as well as defendants has been closed.

4. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 13.08.2019 the

said application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was rejected.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in

the similar circumstances, the learned trial court vide order dated

14.03.2019 has accepted the documents. All documents are

certified copies of the certificates, records of the employees and

have material bearing for adjudication of the case in hand and are

relevant. There will be violation of principles of natural justice if

the said application is not allowed.

6. Per-contra learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that evidence in the present matter was closed on

13.01.2015 and the matter was fixed for final hearing on

06.03.2017. In order to cause delay in adjudication of trial, the

instant application was moved on 27/04/2019. The application has

been filed only in order to delay the trial.

7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the respective

parties, screening records of the writ petition and analyzing the

impugned order dated 13.08.2019, this Court is of the view that

the learned trial court is master of its case for the purpose of

adjudication. The learned trial court, after being well-versed with

facts and circumstances of the case in hand, analyzed the matter

and exercised its wisdom for the adjudication qua recording of

(3 of 4) [CW-15024/2019]

evidence; framing of charges; deciding the applications filed from

time to time and conduct fair trial and final adjudication.

8. While considering petitions under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the interlocutory orders, Court has to

analyze whether there is an error apparent on the face of record

or manifest illegality while passing the said order by learned trial

court. In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that on

13.01.2015 the evidence was closed, matter was fixed for final

hearing on 06.03.2017, in the interest of justice, as claimed by

the petitioner, one application was also allowed for taking

documents at a belated stage on 14.03.2019 but the petitioner

again filed application dated 27.04.2019 for taking further

documents on record.

9. After considering the said application and hearing the

parties, the learned trial court has held as under:-

^^mHk;i{kksa ds rdkZsa ij euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ftlls ;g tkfgj vk;k fd fnukad 14-03-2019 dks [email protected] }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= u/o 7 R14(3) CPC Lohdkj dj nLrkostkr dh fjdkWMZ ij fy;k x;k FkkA tks [email protected] ds M~;wVh pkVZ dh izfr gSA ftuds lEcU/k esa [email protected] }kjk vfrfjDr lk{; dk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k tkus dk p;u fy;k gSA tcfd gLrxr izdj.k es okh lk{; fnukad [email protected]@15 dks can dj nh x;h rFkk izfroknh lk{; fnukad [email protected]@17 can dj nh x;h rFkk fna [email protected]@17 ls i=koyh fnukad [email protected]@19 rFkk i=koyh cgl vafre esa esa fu;r jghA mlds i'pkr gLrxr izkFkZuk vfrfjDr lk{; 'kiFki= ckcr~ is'k fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ftu nLrkostkr Fks lEcU/k esa tks 'kiFk i= izLrqr djus dk dFku fd;k og nLrkost [email protected] }kjk izLrqr dj iznf'kZr D;ksa ugh djk;s ;g Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k gSA [email protected] }kjk 2 o"kZ ds foyEc ls nLrkost o vfrfjDr lk{; dk 'kiFki= is'k fd;k gS ftldk dksbZ I;kZIr dkj.k i=koyh ij is'k ugha dk;k gSA izdj.k o"kZ 2010 ls yfEcr gksdj vR;ar iqjkuk gSA

(4 of 4) [CW-15024/2019]

izkFkhZ }kjk izdj.k esa foyEc djus ds vkJ; ls ;g izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djuk izdV gksrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl Lrj ij izkFkhZ dk izkFkZUkk i= Lohdkj fd; tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; izdV ugha gksrk gSA vr% [email protected] }kjk izLrqr vfrfjDr lk{; 'kiFk i= dk izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA**

10. On perusal of the said reasoned findings, this Court is of the

view that the documents have been filed at the belated stage and

there was no explanation filed by the petitioner in the application

justifying the delay. Further, the suit filed pertains to the year

2010, the object of filing of the application is to delay the

proceedings and no prejudice will be caused as the matter is still

ripe for final arguments.

11. On consideration of the said observations of the learned trial

court, this Court is of the view that the order impugned dated

13.08.2019 does not call for interference. The same is well

reasoned.

12. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

RAJAT KUMAR/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)