Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Hemlata Gupta W/O Shri Shyamsunder ... vs Shri Sanjeev Gupta S/O Shri Ratanchand ... on 4 April, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:15919]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3929/2024
1. Smt. Hemlata Gupta W/o Shri Shyamsunder Gupta
2. Shri Shyamsunder Gupta S/o Shri Niranjan Lal Gupta
Both are R/o House No. AMC (Old) 1180/28 And (New)
965 A 122 "Anubhav Vila" Purani Chungi Chowki, Near
Kapoor Ki Bagichi, Nasirabad Road, Ajmer
----Defendants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Sanjeev Gupta S/o Shri Ratanchand Gupta
2. Shri Deepak Gupta S/o Shri Nemichand Gupta
3. Shri Gagan Gupta S/o Shri Dharampal Gupta
All R/o Jalandhar (Punjab) (8B, Purana Jawahar Nagar)
----Plaintiffs/Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
04/04/2024
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order
dated 16.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge
No.5, Ajmer (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit
No.176/2012 whereby, two applications filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs")
under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC have been allowed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit
for possession and mesne profit against the petitioners/defendants
(for short "the defendants") wherein, they sought to tender the
concession deed dated 19.06.1992 vide an application filed under
[2024:RJ-JP:15919] (2 of 3) [CW-3929/2024]
Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC which has been allowed by the learned
trial Court vide order impugned dated 16.12.2023.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendants
submits that the learned trial Court erred in allowing the
applications despite recording a finding that the reasons furnished
for delay in filing the applications were not proper. He further
submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the
applications were filed with an inordinate delay and deserved to be
dismissed on this count alone. He, therefore, prays that the writ
petition be allowed, the order dated 16.12.2023 be quashed and
set aside and the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order 7
Rule 14(3) be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
True it is that despite making an observation that the
reasons assigned for delay in filing the applications were not
satisfactory, the subject document has been taken on record by
the learned trial Court on the premise that it was referred to in the
suit, was necessary for just and effective disposal of the
controversy involved in the matter and for the delay, the
defendants could be compensated with cost. Accordingly, while
awarding a cost of ₹5,000/-, the applications were allowed. The
relevance of the subject documents for just and effective disposal
of the controversy involved in the matter is not disputed before
this Court as well.
After going through the material on record, this Court is not
satisfied that the order impugned dated 16.12.2023 suffers from
any such perversity, patent arbitrariness or manifest error of
[2024:RJ-JP:15919] (3 of 3) [CW-3929/2024]
law/facts so as to warrant interference of this Court under its
limited supervisory jurisdiction.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
'
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/58
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
