Bashir Ahmed vs Lrs Of Mohammed Ibrahim
2023 Latest Caselaw 8866 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36584]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14583/2023

Bashir Ahmed S/o Shri Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. LRs Of Mohammed Ibrahim, Through Lrs- 1/1 Mohammed Salim S/o Mohammed Ibrahim, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

1/2 Mohammed Alam S/o Mohammed Ibrahim, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

1/3 Nannu S/o Mohammed Ibrahim, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

2. Manjoor Ahmed S/o Late Allarakh, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

3. Qutubuddin S/o Late Allarakh, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

4. LRs Of Jalaluddin, Through Lrs-

4/1 Asgar Ali S/o Late Jalaluddin, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

4/2 Mohammed Arif S/o Late Jalaluddin, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

4/3 Saddam Hussain S/o Late Jalaluddin, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

4/4 Javed S/o Late Jalaluddin, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

5. Mohammed Yusuf S/o Late Abdul Rehman @ Chhotu Ji, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

6. Gulam Farid S/o Late Abdul Sattar, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

7. Nisar Ahmed S/o Late Abdul Sattar, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

8. Arfan S/o Late Ayub, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

9. Kalu S/o Late Ayub S/o Late Noor Mohammed, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

10. Raju S/o Late Ayub S/o Late Noor Mohammed, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

11. Ahmed Hasan S/o Late Noor Mohammed, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

12. Abdul Karim S/o Late Noor Mohammed, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

13. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Nagaur.

14. The Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology,

[2023:RJ-JD:36584] (2 of 7) [CW-14583/2023]

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

15. The Director, Mining Department, Udaipur.

16. The Mining Engineer, Makrana, District Nagaur.

17. Saddique S/o Gulam Nabi, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

18. Yusuf S/o Gulam Nabi, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

19. Gulam Rasoon S/o Late Mohammed Ishaq, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

20. LRs Of Late Gulam Mustafa, Through Lrs- 20/1. Abdul Gani @ Kalu S/o Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya, Resident Of Mohalla Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur. 20/2. Mohammed Ali S/o Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya, Resident Of Mohalla Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur. 20/3. Mohammed Salim S/o Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya, Resident Of Mohalla Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur. 20/4. Shokat Ali S/o Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya, Resident Of Mohalla Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur. 20/5. Fayyaz Ahmed S/o Gulam Mustafa, Resident Of Mohalla Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur.

20/6. Gayyur Ahmed S/o Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya, Resident Of Mohalla Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur. 20/7. Saeeda D/o D/o Gulam Mustafa W/o Abdul Qayyum Gesawat, Resident Of Eidgah Road, Gulabpura, Makrana, District Nagaur.

20/8. Wahidan D/o Gulam Mustafa W/o Abdul Rashid Gesawat, Resident Of Sagar Bazar, Makrana, District Nagaur. 20/9. Parveen Bano D/o Gulam Mustafa W/o Irshad Ali Choudhary, Resident Of Mohalla Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur.

21. Islam S/o Late Abdul Shakoor, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

22. Shabbir S/o Late Abdul Shakoor, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

23. Gani S/o Late Abdul Shakoor, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

24. Ahsan S/o Late Abdul Shakoor, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

25. Alfu S/o Late Abdul Shakoor, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

26. Haji S/o Late Abdul Shakoor, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

27. LRs Of Late Faruque S/o Late Abdul Gafoor, Through Lrs- 27/1. Fakhruddin @ Bablu S/o Late Faruque, Resident Of Chamanpura, Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur.

[2023:RJ-JD:36584] (3 of 7) [CW-14583/2023]

27/2. Fayamuddin @raju S/o Late Faruque, Resident Of Chamanpura, Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur. 27/3. Noshad Ali S/o Late Faruque, Resident Of Chamanpura, Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur.

27/4. Sarfaraz Ahmed S/o Late Faruque, Resident Of Chamanpura, Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur. 27/5. Firoz Ahmed S/o Late Faruque, Resident Of Chamanpura, Godawas, Makrana, District Nagaur.

28. Allabaksh S/o Late Noor Mohammed, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

29. Munna S/o Late Noor Mohammed, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

30. Sheikh Ramzan S/o Late Shokat Ali, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

31. Khalique S/o Late Shokat Ali S/o Late Abdul Rehman @ Chhotu Ji, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

32. Haroon S/o Laet Shokat Ali S/o Late Abdul Rehman @ Chhotu Ji, Resident Of Makrana, District Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. C.V.S. Shekhawat.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 20/10/2023 Pronounced on 31/10/2023

1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that record of the case be called for and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

i. the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 (Annex.1) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur in Civil Suit No.07/2011 (CIS No.195/2019) titled as "Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Saddique &

[2023:RJ-JD:36584] (4 of 7) [CW-14583/2023]

Ors." may kindly be quashed and set aside; the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC may kindly be allowed throughout. ii. any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner; iii. writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel of the petitioner, are that the respondent no.1 to 12

instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against

the father of the petitioner (Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya) before the

learned Additional District Judge, Makarana, District Nagaur.

Thereafter, the petitioner's father filed a written statement on

22.02.2011; during the pendency of the suit, Gulam Mustafa

Sisodiya expired, whereupon, he was substituted by his legal

representatives, including the present petitioner.

2.1. Subsequently, in the pending civil suit, the petitioner filed an

application under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC read with Section 151

CPC before the learned Court below for taking certain documents

on record. The respondents filed a reply to the said application.

2.2. Thereafter, learned Court below vide the impugned order

dated 06.09.2023 rejected the said application of the petitioner.

Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-

quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner by way of the application had only sought to bring on

record rent receipts for the years from 1965 till 2023 and two

[2023:RJ-JD:36584] (5 of 7) [CW-14583/2023]

other documents, pertaining to Environmental Clearance (EC)

dated 04.08.2016 and newspaper cutting regarding the public

notice issued for grant of EC, alongwith certain other documents,

which were received by the petitioner after filing of the written

statement. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned

Court below is not justified in law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed

the written statement in the year 2011 and the documents sought

to be brought on record were received by the petitioner at a later

stage, and therefore, the petitioner filed the application

subsequently. Thus, as per learned counsel, in those

circumstances, the learned Court below ought to have allowed the

application filed by the petitioner.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Court below

failed to consider the relevance of the documents for the purpose

of examination as well as cross-examination, and the said

documents are also relevant for effective adjudication of the

aforementioned suit, but despite the same, the learned Court

below passed the impugned order, which is not justified in law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Counsel

assisted by Mr. C.V.S. Shekhawat appearing on behalf of the

respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondent's evidence

also stood completed by the learned Court below and now the

petitioner has filed an application for additional documents without

any cogent and justifiable reason, and thus, the learned Court

[2023:RJ-JD:36584] (6 of 7) [CW-14583/2023]

below has rightly rejected such application of the petitioner vide

the impugned order.

4.1. It was further submitted that the documents sought to be

brought on record were already in possession of the petitioner

even at the time of filing of the written statement but the

petitioner has filed the application in question just to prolong the

trial of the suit in question. It was also submitted that the suit in

question was filed in the year 2011 and after almost 12 years, the

application in question has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the respondent no. 1 to 12

instituted the aforementioned suit against the father of the

petitioner (Gulam Mustafa Sisodiya) before learned Court below.

The petitioner's father filed the written statement on 22.02.2011.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application under Order 8 Rule

1 (3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the learned Court

below seeking to bring on record certain documents. The

respondents filed reply to the said application. The learned Court

below vide the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 rejected the

said application of the petitioner.

7. This Court further observes that the petitioner filed the

aforementioned application for bringing certain documents on

record; in the said application, the petitioner gave a list of 11

documents, in total, without giving any justified reason as well as

without any substantial reason or proof regarding non-production

of such documents at the time of filing the written statement.

[2023:RJ-JD:36584] (7 of 7) [CW-14583/2023]

8. This Court also observes that the suit in question was

pending since 2011 and after almost 12 years, at evidence stage,

the petitioner has filed the application in question, which is not

justified at all. This Court further observes that the learned Court

below has passed the impugned order after duly considering the

overall facts and circumstances of the case, which is justified in

law.

9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into

the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a

fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present

petition.

10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)