Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2188 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2024
[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)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!