Rajasthan High Court
Om Prakash Agarwal vs J M C Jaipur Anr ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:16571]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5827/2015
Om Prakash Agrawal Son Of Late Shri Babu Lal Agrawal, R/o 11,
Om Niwas, In Front Of Pondrik Park, Brahmpuri Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Through Mahapour,
Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Bhawan, Near Lalkothi Stadium, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Hawa Mahal Zone West, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation, Near Chougan Stadium, Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
03/08/2023
1. By way of the present writ petition, a challenge has been
made to the impugned order dated 06.01.2015 whereby the
evidence of the plaintiff has been struck down.
2. Heard and considered.
3. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with
a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle
of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself
into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the
supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate courts
and tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that
[2023:RJ-JP:16571] (2 of 3) [CW-5827/2015]
they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under
Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to
keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their
authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this respect
can be placed on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Mohd.
Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 327.
4. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant extract of the
impugned order dated 06.01.2015. It is quoted as under:
Þodhy i{kdkj mi0A Lkk{; gsrq i;kZIr volj iwoZ esa fn;s x;s gSA
dksLV ij Hkh volj fn;s x;s ijarq oknh dh vksj ls lk{; mi0
ugh gks ldh gSA o"kZ 2011 ls lk{; oknh es i=koyh fu;r gksrh
jgh gSA mi0 ugh gS vr% lk{; oknh can dh tkrh gSA izfroknh ds
c;ku gksus ds vHkko es izfroknh can dh tkrh gSA i=koyh okLrs
cgl vafre gsrq fnukad 10-02-2015 dks is'k gksAß
5. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, it is categorically
observed that numerous opportunities were provided to the
petitioner to lead their evidence in the suit below. However,
despite being granted adequate opportunities, the petitioner failed
to adduce evidence. It is also noted that the stage of leading
evidence was running ever since the year 2011 and despite the
lapse of four years, no active and effective steps were undertaken
by the petitioner to lead evidence. Thereafter, only having
considered the callous and lethargic conduct of the petitioner in
not leading evidence for a prolonged period of four years, the
stage of evidence qua the petitioner was closed vide impugned
order dated 06.01.2015.
6. In the opinion of this court, the learned trial court has
passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of
key material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This court is
[2023:RJ-JP:16571] (3 of 3) [CW-5827/2015]
in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the court
below. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no
palpable error has crept in the order of the learned trial court.
7. In light of the observations made herein-above, this court
deems it fit to dismiss the present writ petition.
8. As a result, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/64
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
