Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The Food Corporation Of India vs M/S Mohd Shamim Gauri And Anr ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2188 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2188 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

The Food Corporation Of India vs M/S Mohd Shamim Gauri And Anr ... on 21 March, 2024

Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

[2024:RJ-JP:14282]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4091/2018

The Food Corporation Of India, District Office, Malviya Nagar
Extension, Model Town, Jaipur Through Area Manager, Shri Ravi
Prakash.
                                              ----Petitioner/Plaintiff Corporation
                                          Versus
1.        M/s      Mohd      Shamim         Gauri       (Handling       And     Transport
          Contractor), C/o Samrat Tent And Light House, Muslim
          Musafir Khana, Mohalla Sheikhpura Sikar And Ward No.
          27, Old No. 33, New Kotwali Road, Sikar Through
          Proprietor Shri Mohd Shamim Gauri.
2.        Shri Mohd Shamim Gauri S/o Shri Sirajuddin Gauri
          Proprietor M/s Mohd Shamim Gauri R/o C/o Samrat Tent
          And      Light     House,        Muslim        Musafir       Khana,     Mohalla
          Sheikhpura Sikar And Ward No. 27, Old No. 33, New
          Kotwali Road, Sikar
                                                      ----Respondents/Defendants
For Petitioner(s)               :     Mr. Vikram Jain
For Respondent(s)               :     Mr. Yudhishter Ratnoo



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                Judgment / Order

21/03/2024

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order

dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge

No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the

learned trial Court") whereby, an application filed by the

respondents/defendants (for brevity "the defendants") under

Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed.

[2024:RJ-JP:14282] (2 of 3) [CW-4091/2018]

Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff

(for short "the plaintiff") submits that it was not supplied with the

copy of all the documents sought to be submitted alongwith the

application. He further submits that no document was submitted

by the defendant No.2 in support of the reason assigned for delay

in filing the application. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition

be allowed, the order dated 29.11.2017 be quashed and set aside

and the application filed by the defendants under Order 8 Rule

1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC be dismissed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants supported the

findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

Heard. Considered.

While allowing the application, the learned trial Court has

held that the issue of admissibility of the documents cannot be

decided at this stage and for delay, the plaintiff could be

compensated with cost and accordingly, the application was

allowed subject to the cost of ₹1,500/-. This Court is in respectful

agreement with the reasonings assigned by the learned trial

Court. In absence of a case by the plaintiff that the documents are

not relevant for just and effective disposal of the controversy

involved in the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

learned trial Court did nor err in allowing the application filed by

the defendants under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151

CPC.

The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the

plaintiff are misconceived and do not merit acceptance. A perusal

of the order impugned does not reveal that any such objection

[2024:RJ-JP:14282] (3 of 3) [CW-4091/2018]

was taken that it has not been supplied with the copies of the

documents sought to be tendered alongwith the application.

Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid

of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/44

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter