Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Prem Kanwar Daughter Of Shri ... vs Laxminarayan Sharma Son Of Shri ... on 25 November, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12731/2022
Smt. Prem Kanwar Daughter Of Shri Prabhu Singh, Aged About
55 Years, Resident Of Village Maharajpur, Tehsil And District
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Laxminarayan Sharma Son Of Shri Shaktilal Sharma,
Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of 47, Shivpuri, Arya
Nagar, Murlipura Jaipur At Present Residing At House No.
94, Pashim Vihar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Wife Of Shri Laxminarayan
Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of 47, Shivpuri,
Arya Nagar, Murlipura Jaipur At Present Residing At House
No. 94, Pashim Vihar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Narayan Singh Son Of Late Shri Thakur Prabhu Singh,
Resident Of Village Maharajpur, Tehsil And District Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aatish Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
Order Reserved on :: 21.11.2022
Order Pronounced on :: 25.11.2022
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 & 227
of Constitution of India against the order dt. 14.7.2022 passed by
Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan,
Jaipur-I in Civil Suit No.39/2013 whereby applications under Order
16 Rule 6 CPC and Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC
(2 of 3) [CW-12731/2022]
for summoning the witness and documentary evidence were
allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents
No.1 & 2 have filed a suit for specific performance of the contract
against the petitioner and respondent No.3. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 had filed two
applications under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC and Order 16 Rule 1 & 2
read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court and trial court
vide order dt. 14.7.2022 wrongly allowed these applications.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted
position in the suit that petitioner had not executed any
agreement for sale of land with respondents No.1 & 2. Respondent
No.1 in its evidence clearly admitted these facts that petitioner
had not executed any agreement with him and he had not given
any payment towards it. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner's evidence was closed by the trial court.
Petitioner had no concern with the documents dt. 24.10.2011 and
14.11.2011. It is admitted position that respondents No.1 & 2 had
to prove their case by their own evidence but trial court wrongly
allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 for
summoning the petitioner as a witness in rebuttal evidence and
documents etc. So, order of the trial court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 has opposed
the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that respondent No.3 had sold the land in connivance
with the petitioner and received money on behalf of the petitioner.
Deliberately, petitioner had not appeared in the witness box and
her evidence was closed by the trial court. Petitioner wanted to
prove the documents dt. 24.10.2011 and 14.11.2011. So, there is
(3 of 3) [CW-12731/2022]
no harm in calling the petitioner as a witness and other witnesses
and documents. So, order of the trial court is well reasoned.
Hence, petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
following judgments:- (1) Heera Lal vs. Smt. Mangi Bai & ors.
reported in 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 751; (2) Ashok Kehswani
vs. Gopiram & ors. 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 589 and (3) Gopala
Krishna Murthy vs. B.R. Rao AIR 1973 Andhra Pradesh 309.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent.
It is an admitted position that respondents No.1 & 2 had filed
the suit for specific performance and they had to prove their case
by way of their evidence. It is also admitted position that the said
agreement was not executed by the petitioner. So, in my
considered opinion, trial court wrongly allowed the applications
filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC and Order
16 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. So, order of the trial
court dt. 14.7.2022 deserves to be set aside.
Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and
order of the trial court dt. 14.7.2022 is set aside.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Brijesh 40.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
