Rajasthan High Court
Santosh Kumar S/O Late Shri ... vs Smt. Kamala Devi W/O Shri Ramesh ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023/RJJP/000320]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15218/2019
1. Santosh Kumar S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam, Aged About 42
Years,
2. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam, Aged About
40 Years,
3. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam,
All are resident of Town Dehra Th. Alwar District Alwar
(Raj.)
4. Mahesh Chand S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam (Deceased)
4/1. Suman W/o Late Shri Mahesh Chand,
4/2. Jitendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Mahesh Chand,
4/3. Nitin S/o Late Shri Mahesh Chand,
4/4. Keshav S/o Late Shri Mahesh Chand,
All are R/o Town Dehra Th. Alwar District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioners-Defendnats
Versus
1. Smt. Kamala Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, R/o
Plot No.2, Scheme No.4, Alwar.
........Respondent-Plaintiff
2. Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Surya Prakash, R/o H. No.
3/298, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondent-Defendnat
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sangeeta Kumari Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment
24/01/2023
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed against the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Alwar (for brevity "the learned trial
Court") in Civil Suit No.26/2006 whereby, an application filed by
[2023/RJJP/000320] (2 of 3) [CW-15218/2019]
the respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the
plaintiff") under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, has
been allowed.
The facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific
performance of agreement dated 09.12.1991 and permanent
injunction against the petitioners/defendants and the respondent
No.2. During course of the trial, the plaintiff filed an application
under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling
PW-1, Shri Sunil Kumar in witness-box which has been allowed by
the learned trial court vide its order dated 09.08.2019, impugned
herein.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate that vide
order dated 06.03.2019, it has already rejected the prayer of the
plaintiff to subject the PW-1, Shri Sunil Kumar to re-examination
and hence, the order dated 09.08.2019 is liable to be quashed and
set aside. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed,
the order dated 09.08.2019 be quashed and set aside and the
application filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17 read with
Section 151 CPC be dismissed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that
vide order dated 06.03.2019, the learned trial Court has rejected
her prayer to subject Shri Sunil Kumar (PW-1) to re-examination;
whereas, the vide order dated 09.08.2019, while allowing her
application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, he
has been recalled in witness-box as at the time of his
examination-in-chief, certain documents left to be exhibited. She,
therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.
[2023/RJJP/000320] (3 of 3) [CW-15218/2019]
Heard. Considered.
The learned trial Court has, vide order impugned dated
09.08.2019 directed recalling of Shri Sunil Kumar (PW-1) in the
witness-box on the premise that during course of his examination-
in-chief on an earlier occasion, certain important documents
relevant for disposal of the controversy involved in the matter,
remained to be exhibited on account of inadvertence. It is not a
case of the petitioners that the documents which are required to
be exhibited through PW-1 are not relevant for just and effective
disposal of the controversy involved in the matter. Contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced
inasmuch as vide order dated 06.03.2019, the request of the
plaintiff to subject Shri Sunil Kumar (PW-1) to re-examination was
declined whereas, vide order dated 09.08.2019, he has been
recalled in the witness-box to exhibit certain documents.
This Court finds no reason in its extraordinary jurisdiction to
interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial
Court in exercise of its judicious discretion in the interest of
justice.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/101
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
