Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Shri Dulichand vs Laxman Singh on 25 October, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:44047]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17315/2024
1. Lrs Of Shri Dulichand, Through Lrs.
2. Rukmani Devi W/o Late Shri Dulichand, Aged About 80
Years, Resident Of Ashoka Hotel, Station Road, Jodhpur
And Rawal Farmhouse, Krishnapuri, Sirohi (Raj.).
3. Mahendra S/o Late Shri Dulichand, Aged About 59 Years,
Resident Of Ashoka Hotel, Station Road, Jodhpur And
Rawal Farmhouse, Krishnapuri, Sirohi (Raj.).
4. Narendra S/o Late Shri Dulichand, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of Ashoka Hotel, Station Road, Jodhpur And
Rawal Farmhouse, Krishnapuri, Sirohi (Raj.).
5. Ashok S/o Late Shri Dulichand, Aged About 53 Years,
Resident Of Ashoka Hotel, Station Road, Jodhpur And
Rawal Farmhouse, Krishnapuri, Sirohi (Raj.).
6. Anand S/o Late Shri Dulichand, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Ashoka Hotel, Station Road, Jodhpur And
Rawal Farmhouse, Krishnapuri, Sirohi (Raj.).
7. Trilok S/o Late Shri Dulichand, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident Of Ashoka Hotel, Station Road, Jodhpur And
Rawal Farmhouse, Krishnapuri, Sirohi (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Laxman Singh S/o Ganeshi Lal Ji, Resident Of Railway
Station, Jodhpur.
2. Kamal Kishore S/o Ganeshi Lal Ji, Resident Of Railway
Station, Jodhpur.
3. Chandra Prakash S/o Ganeshi Lal Ji, Resident Of Railway
Station, Jodhpur.
4. Vinod Kumar S/o Ganesh Lal Ji, Resident Of Railway
Station, Jodhpur.
5. Lr's Of Smt. Intu W/o Late Mohd. Hanif, Through Lr's.
6. Ahsan S/o Late Mohd. Hanif, Resident Of C-169 (Barkat
House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway Crossing,
Jodhpur.
7. Lr's Of Ulfat, Through Lr's.
8. Aslam S/o Late Shri Mardan Khan, Resident Of C-169
(Downloaded on 25/10/2024 at 10:01:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:44047] (2 of 5) [CW-17315/2024]
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
9. Akhatar S/o Late Shri Mardan Khan, Resident Of C-169
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
10. Smt. Hushna W/o Sikandar, Resident Of C-169 (Barkat
House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway Crossing,
Jodhpur.
11. Smt. Baby W/o Abdul Rashid, Resident Of C-169 (Barkat
House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway Crossing,
Jodhpur.
12. Naseem D/o Late Shri Mohd. Hanif, Resident Of C-169
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
13. Najiya D/o Late Shri Mohd. Hanif, Resident Of C-169
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
14. Lr's Of Emna, Through Lr's.
15. Nasir S/o Late Shri Shafimohd., Resident Of C-169
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
16. Abdul Rashid S/o Late Shri Shafimohd., Resident Of C-169
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
17. Abdul Hamid S/o Shri Shafimohd., Resident Of C-169
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
18. Smt. Praveen W/o Shri Shafimohd., Resident Of C-169
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
19. Smt Rajiya D/o Shir Mohd. Hanif, Resident Of C-169
(Barkat House), Masuriya, Chopasni Road, Near Railway
Crossing, Jodhpur.
20. Lr's Of Ghanshyam Parihar, Through Lr's.
21. Smt. Anita W/o Late Shri Ghanshyam, Resident Of
Railway Station Near Ashoka Hotel, Jodhpur.
22. Jilmil D/o Late Shri Ghanshyam, Resident Of Railway
Station Near Ashoka Hotel, Jodhpur.
(Downloaded on 25/10/2024 at 10:01:24 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:44047] (3 of 5) [CW-17315/2024]
23. Harkraj Parihar S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam, Resident Of
Railway Station Near Ashoka Hotel, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Tatia
Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
25/10/2024
By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed
for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the
writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed with
cost throughout and adequate order, writ, directions:
i. Impugned order dated 4.10.2024 (Annexure-07) passed
by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.6 Jodhpur in CO
No.156/2001 (Laxman Singh V/s. Smt. Intu & Ors.), may
kindly be quashed and set aside; and consequence thereof,
the application filed by petitioners under order 8 rules 1A
CPC may kindly be allowed and;
ii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is
considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
are facing a suit for eviction and recovery of rent as filed by the
respondents- plantiffs in relation to a property situated on Station Road,
Sahakari Bazar, Jodhpur. Learned counsel submitted that the
applications filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1-A read with
Section 151 CPC for documents viz. inward outward register of the year
1966 and the documents relating to Income Tax Department indicating
that the same were issued in the name of Ashoka Hotel, to establish
that Late Shri Dulichand was running Ashoka Hotel and the disputed
[2024:RJ-JD:44047] (4 of 5) [CW-17315/2024]
place prior to the year 1968 have been dismissed by the learned trial
Court. Learned counsel submitted that learned trial Court has
committed grave jurisdictional error in disallowing the applications of
the petitioners because all the documents which were sought to be
produced would indicate that the defendant- Dulichand was not a sub-
tenant in the suit property. It was contended that since the documents
which were not in knowledge and possession of the petitioners at the
time of filing of the written statements have been produced at the stage
of defendant's evidence, to decide the real controversy involved in the
matter, the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1-A of CPC ought not to
have been rejected by the learned trial Court.
3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners
have placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the cases of
"Santveer Singh vs. Addl. Civil Judge, Hanumangarh & Anr." reported in
2004 AIR Rajasthan 214; "Kaluram @ Sher Singh & Ors. vs. Omprakash
& Anr." reported in (2008) 2 DNJ 875.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the order dated
04.10.2024 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Original Case
No.156/2001, NCV No.463/2016.
5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 indicates that
the petitioners in the year 2024 (date not clear from the record of the
case) filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A of CPC for taking the
documents pertaining to the years 1966 and 1968 on record. The
application was filed at the stage when evidence of plantiff was already
closed. The matter is pending for evidence of defendant since the year
2018. It is also to be noticed that on 05.07.2018 defendant No.3 was
given last opportunity to produce his evidence but till date he has failed
to produce the same.
[2024:RJ-JD:44047] (5 of 5) [CW-17315/2024]
The record of the case further indicates that the suit for eviction
and recovery of rent was presented by the plantiffs- respondents on
06.01.1990. The reply to the suit was filed on behalf of the petitioners-
defendants on 08.05.1995.
6. It is a settled law that extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of Constitution of India should be invoked by the High Court when the
impugned order is found to be perverse or contrary to the material or it
results in manifest injustice. The High Court is not expected to upset
the well-reasoned orders passed by learned trial Court.
7. In the present case, as noticed above, the application under Order
8 Rule 1-A of CPC was moved at a belated stage without disclosing the
relevant and necessary details/facts regarding date and place of
discovery of the documents sought to be presented before the trial
Court by the petitioners- defendants.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any perversity or
illegality in the impugned order dated 04.02.2024 and hence, the writ
petition being devoid any substance deserves to be dismissed.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same
being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
10. Stay application also stands dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
521-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
