Rajasthan High Court
Manoj Kumar Son Of Sohanlal ... vs Gyan Chand Son Of Late Bhanwarlal ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9321/2022
Manoj Kumar Son Of Sohanlal Mahajan Meratwal, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of Shri Gautam Printing Press, Near Ganesh
Payu, Kapda Market, Kekri, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner/Defendant No.4
Versus
1. Gyan Chand Son Of Late Bhanwarlal Oswal Meratwal,
Resident Of Sathana Bazar, Bardane Ke Vyapyari,
Vijaynagar, District Ajmer.
----Respondent No.1/Plaintiff
2. Gautam Chand Son Of Sohanlal Mahajan Oswal Meratwal,
Resident Of Kekri, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer.
3. Surendra Kumar Son Of Sohanlal Mahajan Oswal
Meratwal, Resident Of Kekri, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer.
(Died) Being Represented By -
3/1. Smt. Urmila Devi Wife Of Surendra Kumar Meratwal,
Resident Of 725, Ananad Nagar, Behind Guru Pushkar Jain
Bhawan, Main Mandiya Road, Pali, Rajasthan.
3/2. Neelesh Son Of Surendra Kumar Meratwal, Resident Of
725, Ananad Nagar, Behind Guru Pushkar Jain Bhawan,
Main Mandiya Road, Pali, Rajasthan.
3/3. Smt. Manisha Daughter Of Surendra Kumar Wife Of
Mahipal Nabriya, Kantilal Ji Nabriya Mahipal Textile,
Gajanand Marg, Pali, Post Pali, Rajasthan.
4. Narendra Kumar Son Of Sohanlal Mahajan Oswal
Meratwal, Resident Of Kekri, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer.
5. Smt. Nirmala Jain Daughter Of Sohanlal Mahajan Oswal
Meratwal, Resident Of Kekri, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer.
----Respondents No.2 to 5/ Defendants No.1,2,3
and 5
6. Smt. Jeyasht Kanwar Wife Of Manohar Singh Oswal
Meratwal, Resident Of Beawar. (Died) (Name Deleted).
7. Smt. Sajjan Kanwar Daughter Of Late Bhanwarlal, Wife Of
Rishabchand Chipad, Dooni, District Tonk.
8. Smt. Maina Kothari Daughter Of Late Bhanwarlal, Wife Of
Shanti Kumar, Resident Of Behind Multipurpose School,
Gumanpura, Kota.
(2 of 4) [CW-9321/2022]
9. Smt. Chandra Kanta Daughter Of Bhanwarlal, Wife Of
Suresh Kumar Lodha, Resident Of Sunaro Ki Bawri,
Opposite Kanya Pathshala, Chandni Chowk, Ratlam,
Madhya Pradesh, Legal Heir Property Of Bhanwarlal Son
Of Mishri Lal Resident Of Kekri, Tehsil Kekri, Ajmer.
----Proforma Respondents No.6 to 9/ Proforma
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
04/07/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order
dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge
No.2, Kekri, District Ajmer in civil suit no.28/2012 whereby, an
application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.4 under Order 8
Rule 1A(3) CPC has been dismissed.
The facts in brief are that the respondents no.1 filed a suit
for partition and permanent injunction against the petitioner and
respondent no.2 to 5 qua a three storey haveli situated in town
Kekri. At the stage when the case was fixed for final arguments,
the petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC
seeking leave of the Court to place on record a copy of the sale
deed dated 25.10.1971, which has been dismissed by the learned
trial Court vide its order dated 24.05.2022, impugned herein.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the document, i.e., sale deed dated 25.10.1971
was necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy
(3 of 4) [CW-9321/2022]
involved in the matter. Drawing attention of this Court towards the
averments contained in the written statement and affidavit in
examination-in-chief of the petitioner, learned counsel submitted
that there was enough indication of the sale deed in the written
statement and hence, learned trial Court erred in dismissing his
application. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed
and the order impugned dated 24.05.2022 be quashed and set
aside.
Heard. Considered.
A perusal of the order dated 24.05.2022 reveals that while
dismissing the application, learned trial Court has observed that
the written statement filed by the applicant is bereft of any
averment to substantiate which, the document in question could
be said to be relevant. This Court has also gone through the
written statement filed by the petitioner and finds no reference in
it either of the sale deed dated 25.10.1971 or any indication of its
execution affecting rights of the parties qua the subject property.
It is trite law that no evidence is permissible in absence of
pleading. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner.
Even otherwise also, the application filed by the petitioner
under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC does not reveal any reason for not
submitting the document in question in time as it was executed
way back in the year 1971 whereas, the suit was filed in the year
2012. No reason has been assigned by the applicant in the
application for inordinate delay in seeking permission of the Court
to place the document on record. Relying upon a judgment of this
(4 of 4) [CW-9321/2022]
Court in case of Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur vs.
Govindpuri and Anr.: 2019 (3) CCC-319 Raj, learned trial
Court has observed that in absence of plausible reasons, the
application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC could not be entertained
at the stage of final arguments.
This Court does not find the order dated 25.05.2022 to be
suffering from any perversity or patent jurisdictional error so as to
warrant interference of this Court in its limited supervisory
jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/94
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
