Rajasthan High Court
Vishambhar Dayal And Ors vs Mafi Mandir Shari Mahadev ... on 20 October, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:30960]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9154/2010
1. Vishambhar Dayal
2. Radha Mohan, Both Are S/o Kanhaiya Lal Mahajan,
Mahuwa, District Dausa
3. Man Singh S/o Surja
4. Shriram S/o Jawan Singh
5. Gyan Singh S/o Sukh Singh, R/o Bhopat, Tehsil Mahuwa,
District Dausa
6. Bhupendra Kumar S/o Shri Kastoor Chand Jain, Gehnoli
Tehsil Mahuwa, District Dausa
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Mafi Mandir Shri Mahadevji Through Pujari Shri Rajendra
Puri, Chela Shri Shanker Puri, R/o Math Mahuwa Tehsil
Mahuwa, District Dausa
2. The State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Dausa
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jinesh Jain
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
20/10/2023
1. Service in the matter is complete. Despite several
opportunities being granted, no one is appearing on behalf of the
respondents. Therefore, in pursuance to orders dated 26.09.2023
and 19.10.2023, this Court is constrained to take up the matter
for final disposal.
2. The present writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is directed against the impugned order dated
[2023:RJ-JP:30960] (2 of 3) [CW-9154/2010]
20.04.2010, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Mahuwa District Dausa, in Civil Suit No. 1/2002 titled as 'Mafi
Mandir Shri Mahadevji vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.'
3. The facts of the case, as per learned counsel for the
petitioner, is that in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent
against the defendant-petitioner for declaration, the defendant-
petitioner had filed an application for taking some document on
record. However, the said application was dismissed by the Trial
Court vide impugned order dated 20.04.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the additional
documents that the defendant-petitioner sought to brought on
record were the Jamabandi of Samvat 2021 to 2024 on record.
However, inadvertently and due to bona fide typographical error,
incorrect provision of law was mentioned in the application which
read Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC, whereas the correct provision of law
was Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of CPC.
5. Learned counsel for the petition has drawn attention of this
Court to the contents of the impugned order dated 20.04.2010 to
contend that the application for bringing documents on record,
which were necessary for fair adjudication of the matter, was
rejected only on technical grounds and not on merits. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Apex Court
judgment of Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadega (D) by Lrs. vs.
Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah & Ors (Civil Appeal No.
10521/2013; decided on 04.10.2019; Neutral Citation:
2019/INSC/1125).
[2023:RJ-JP:30960] (3 of 3) [CW-9154/2010]
6. Heard and considered.
7. It is quite apparent that the application to bring documents
on record was dismissed primarily for wrongly mentioning the
provisions of law and not on merits. On merits, the only
observation by the learned Trial Court was that the application was
moved by the defendant-petitioner at the fag-end of trial.
However, the reason for dismissal of application is assigned to the
mentioning of wrong provision and the reason of delay in filing
application were not considered.
8. As observed by the Apex Court in Pruthvirajsinh
Nodhubha Jadega (supra), it is well settled that mere
mentioning/non-mentioning of incorrect provision is not fatal to
the application if the power to pass an order is available with the
Court.
9. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to
quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2010.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications,
if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /264
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
