Rajasthan High Court
Sukh Sagar Buildcon Private ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17342/2022
Sukh Sagar Buildcon Private Limited, (Previously Known As
Sapphire Ceremic And Glass Private Limited) Office 201, Laxmi
Complex, M.i. Road, Jaipur Through Director Shri Surendra
Kumar Baradia S/o Late Shri Sagar Mal Baradia, Aged 63 Years,
R/o Plot No. 20, Baradia Colony, Museum Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat
Jaipur
2. Deputy Secretary - Third, Urban Development
Department, Secretariat Jaipur
3. Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur
4. Commissioner (Planning) And Secretary, Bhawan Anugya
And Sankarm Samiti , Nagar Nigam-5, Office Lalkothi,
Tonk Road, Jaipur
5. Senior Town Planner, Nagar Nigam Lalkothi, Tonk Road,
Jaipur
6. Shriniwas Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o
220, Navjeevn Upvan, Daddho Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari
Road, Jaipur
7. Ambrish Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o
220, Navjeevn Upvan, Daddho Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari
Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15482/2022
Sukh Sagar Buildcon Private Limited, (Previously Known As
Sapphire Ceremic And Glass Private Limited) Office 201, Laxmi
Complex, M.i. Road, Jaipur Through Director Shri Surendra
Kumar Baradia S/o Late Shri Sagar Mal Baradia, Aged 63 Years,
R/o Plot No. 20, Baradia Colony, Museum Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat
(2 of 5) [CW-17342/2022]
Jaipur
2. Deputy Secretary - Third, Urban Development
Department, Secretariat Jaipur
3. Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur
4. Commissioner (Planning) And Secretary, Bhawan Anugya
And Sankarm Samiti , Nagar Nigam-5, Office Lalkothi,
Tonk Road, Jaipur
5. Senior Town Planner, Nagar Nigam Lalkothi, Tonk Road,
Jaipur
6. Shriniwas Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o
220, Navjeevn Upvan, Daddho Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari
Road, Jaipur
7. Ambrish Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o
220, Navjeevn Upvan, Daddho Ka Bagh, Moti Doongari
Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma
Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
03/01/2023
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff
challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 whereby the evidence of
the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by the trial Court as well as the
order dated 16.11.2022 whereby the application submitted by the
petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. for reopening of
evidence was dismissed by the trial Court.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a
suit for declaration and cancellation of order of sub division and
mandatory injunction. Initially the suit filed by the petitioner-
(3 of 5) [CW-17342/2022]
plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated
22.07.2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
the respondent Nos.6 & 7 filed Civil First Appeal No.459/2014
before this court which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of
this court and matter was remanded back to the learned trial
Court vide order dated 21.01.2019 and the petitioner-plaintiff filed
amended plaint and impleaded the respondent Nos.6 & 7 as
defendants in the suit proceeding, thereafter during pendency of
the suit proceeding, the respondent Nos.6 & 7 filed application
under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. before the trial Court which was
dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.09.2021. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.6 & 7 filed S.B.
Civil Revision Petition No.138/2021 before this court which was
dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order datd
16.02.2022 and directed the trial Court to decide the suit within a
period of nine months. The learned trial Court when the petitioner-
plaintiff failed to submit its evidence, closed the right to submit
the evidence vide order dated 12.10.2022. The petitioner-plaintiff
thereafter filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for
reopening of its evidence which was dismissed by the trial Court
vide order dated 16.11.2022, hence this writ petition has been
filed by the petitoner-plaintiff challenging the orders dated
12.10.2022 & 16.11.2022.
Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the
evidence could not be produced before the trial Court as the
counsel appearing for them failed to inform them with regard to
submitting of their evidence however submitted that one last
opportunity be granted to them to submit their complete evidence
before the trial Court on payment of cost.
(4 of 5) [CW-17342/2022]
Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and
submits that the petitioner-plaintiff wants to delay the suit
proceedings. Counsel further submits that no sufficient cause has
been shown by the petitioner-plaintiff for reopening of the
evidence. Counsel further submits that as per the provisions of
Order 17(1) only three opportunities can be granted to the
petitioner-plaintiff to submit their evidence, however in the
present case, five opportunities have been granted by the trial
Court and prayed for dismissed of the writ petition.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
These writ petitions filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs
deserves to be allowed for the reasons firstly, a bare perusal of
the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the learned trial Court
clearly shows that the trial Court in a hurried manner in one
month's time given five opportunities to the petitioner-plaintiff for
submitting the evidence, secondly, the matter got delayed before
the learned trial Court as the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 have filed the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. which was dismissed in
the month of September, 2021 and thereafter, the respondents
Nos.6 & 7 have also filed revision petition before this court which
was ultimately decided by this court in the month of February,
2022, thereafter, the suit proceeding started. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, I deem it just and proper to
invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are allowed
subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents
Nos.6 & 7. The petitioner-plaintiff is allowed to submit all its
evidence before the learned trial Court within a period of one
(5 of 5) [CW-17342/2022]
month from today. The orders dated 16.11.2022 and 12.10.2022
are set aside.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Jyoti/110-111
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
