Kanahiyalal Basur S/O Lt. Shri ... vs Nagar Nigam, Through Mayor
2022 Latest Caselaw 2770 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2541/2020

Kanahiyalal Basur S/o Lt. Shri Badrinarayan Ji, Aged About 86
Years, R/o House No. 75, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
                                                               ----Petitioner/Plaintiff
                                         Versus
1.        Nagar Nigam, Through Mayor, Office Nagar Nigam Office,
          Tonk Road.
2.        Chief Executive Officer, Office Nagar Nigam, Tonk Road,
          Jaipur.
3.        Deputy Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Zone Civil Line, Near
          New Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur.
                                                     ----Respondents/Defendants

For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Yash Sharma with
                                     Ms. Garima Dadhich &
                                     Mr. Aman Lodha
For Respondent(s)              :     Dr. Sajit Jakhar with
                                     Mr. Rajan Prajapati



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                          Order

31/03/2022

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India assails the legality and validity of the order dated

03.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No.4, Jaipur

Metropolitan whereby the application filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC has been

dismissed.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit for

mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants. After

closure of evidence of the parties, he moved an application under

(2 of 4) [CW-2541/2020]

Order 7 Rule 14 CPC which has been dismissed by the learned trial

Court vide order dated 03.10.2019, impugned herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is his

suit for mandatory injunction wherein his immovable property has

been seized by the respondents and hence, no oblique motive of

delay in trial could be imputed upon him. Referring the provisions

of Order 13 Rules 1 & 3 CPC, learned counsel submitted that he

did not file the original documents in question before settlement of

the issues as he intended to produce the same at the time of

cross-examination of the defendants-witnesses. He submitted that

while rejecting his application, learned trial Court has failed to

exercise a discretion vested in it under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC.

He, in support of his submissions, relied on following judgments:

(1) Basid Singh & Ors. Vs. Puran Singh & Ors.; S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.16379/2010, (2) Onkarlal Vs. Abdul

Rashid & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14373/2011 & (3)

Chandan Singh Vs. Deewan Singh; S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1111/2018. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned

dated 03.10.2019 be quashed and his application be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting

the findings recorded by the learned trial Court contended that the

same do not warrant any interference of this Court under its

supervisory jurisdiction. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

writ petition.

Heard. Considered.

In the suit filed way back in the year 2016, the petitioner

filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC on 13.09.2019,

i.e., after closure of evidence of both the parties. Indisputably, the

documents were in existence at the time of filing of the suit. No

(3 of 4) [CW-2541/2020]

reason is forthcoming either in the application or during the course

of arguments as to why the documents, photocopies of which

were already on record, were not produced diligently at the

appropriate stage. A perusal of the application reveals that only

reason assigned therein for taking the documents on record is that

he wanted to cross-examine the defendants on these documents,

the reason already rendered infructuous by the time the

application was filed. If the application is allowed, it would entail

retrial of the suit which was already fixed for final arguments by

the time the application was moved. In view thereof, this Court

does not find any patent jurisdictional error in the order dated

03.10.2019 passed by the learned trial Court in its judicious

discretion.

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner are of no help to him having been rendered in different

facts and circumstances. In case of Basid Singh (supra), the

application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed by the plaintiff

during the course of his evidence with the reason that certified

copies of the documents, photocopies of which were already on

record, were not available at the relevant time; but, in the present

case, by the time the application was filed, evidence of both the

parties was already over and no reason has been assigned for not

obtaining the certified copies of the documents in question in time.

Similarly, in case of Onkarlal (supra), the defendant filed an

application for taking original receipts on record before his

evidence began. As already stated, this position is not obtaining in

the present case.

In case of Chandan Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court

of Madhya Pradesh has observed that jurisdiction under Order 7

(4 of 4) [CW-2541/2020]

Rule 14 (3) CPC is discretionary and it should liberally be

exercised. This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid

down in this case; but, as already held, in the present case, the

learned trial Court has passed the order impugned in its judicious

discretion which warrants no interference of this Court in its

limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

PRAGATI/s-197

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)