Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mandir Murti Charbhuja Ji vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:29066]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12119/2025
Mandir Murti Charbhuja Ji, (Kanha Ji Ka Kund)
Nimbahera, Tehsil Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh
Through Its Pujaries.
1. Lrs Of Govinddas S/o Nandramdas :
1/1. Smt. Girjadevi W/o Govindram Bairagi, Aged About
71 Years, R/o Near Risala School, Nimbahera, District
Chittorgarh (Raj.).
1/2. Shyamdas S/o Govindram Bairagi, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Near Risala School, Nimbahera, District
Chittorgarh (Raj.).
1/3. Ramesh S/o Govindram Bairagi, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Near Risala School, Nimbahera, District
Chittorgarh (Raj.).
1/4. Smt. Yashoda D/o Govindram Bairagi, W/o Anil Ji,
Aged About 43 Years, R/o Savita Colony, Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
1/5. Aashish S/o Late Rajudas, R/o Aged 28 Years, R/o
Near Risala School, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh
(Raj.).
1/6. Yash S/o Late Rajudas, Aged 24 Years, R/o Near
Risala School, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
1/7. Smt. Seema W/o Late Rajudas Vaishnav, Aged 41
Years, R/o Near Risala School, Nimbahera, District
Chittorgarh (Raj.).
2. Kamaldas S/o Nandramdas, Aged About 60 Years, Nagar
Palika Karamchari Colony, Plot No. 40, Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh (Raj.).
3. Ramprakash Das S/o Seetaramdas, Aged About 51
Years, Near Upkaragrah, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
State Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Chittorgarh.
(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 10:19:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29066] (2of 4) [CW-12119/2025]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Jain.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
07/07/2025
1. Petitioners (plaintiffs) herein, inter-alia, seeks quashing of
the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 (Annex.-5) passed by
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Nimbahera,
District Chittorgarh in Civil Original Suit No.70/2015, vide which
their application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPCfor taking documents
on record was rejected.
2. For ease of reference, English translation of the impugned
order dated 05.05.2025 (as provided) is given as follows:
"The plaintiffs are absent. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs,
Mr. S.K. Ojha, is present. The defendants are also absent; however,
learned counsel for the defendants, Mr. Kamlesh Shrimali,
Additional Public Prosecutor, is present.
Arguments were heard from both sides on the application filed
on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (CPC). The order on said application is being
pronounced today.
On 21.04.2025, the plaintiffs submitted an application stating
that the case is fixed for plaintiff's evidence. In this regard, they
submitted that a stone inscription (Sati Silalekh) in Devanagari
script, presented by them as evidence, was translated into Hindi by
historian Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, resident of Udaipur, Rajasthan, and
that the Hindi translations bear his signature. Similarly, documents
in Urdu from the era of the Tonk princely state, dated 1885, 1910,
and 1930, were translated into Hindi by Mr. Wasimul Haq, son of the
late Mr. Nizamul Haq, resident of Nimbahera. Copies of all said
Hindi translations have been annexed with the application.
It was requested that these translated copies be taken on
record as they would assist the Court in adjudication. Therefore, the
plaintiffs prayed for the application to be accepted and the
documents be taken on record.
In reply, the defendants submitted that the case had remained
at the stage of plaintiff's evidence from the year 2018 until
07.10.2024. Thereafter, upon the case progressing to the stage of
defendant's evidence, the plaintiffs filed two applications under
[2025:RJ-JD:29066] (3of 4) [CW-12119/2025]
Order VII Rule 14 CPC on 06.01.2025 and 15.01.2025, upon which
the Court had already passed orders. Now, at the stage of cross-
examination of the defendant's affidavit-in-evidence, the plaintiffs
have submitted the present application. It is the submission of the
defendants that the plaintiffs have filed this application merely to fill
lacunae. Therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.
Arguments on the application were heard from both sides.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiffs
reiterated the contents of the application, whereas learned counsel
for the defendants reiterated the contents of their reply.
Upon hearing the arguments from both sides and upon perusal
of the case record and applicable law, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 19.12.2025,
despite the case having remained at the stage of plaintiff's evidence
from 2018 to 2024, and is currently at the stage of defendant's
evidence.
The plaintiffs have not provided any explanation in the
application as to why the above Hindi translations were not
submitted earlier. As a general rule, plaintiffs are expected to file all
documents relied upon along with the plaint or, at the latest, prior to
the framing of issues. In the present case, however, the plaintiffs have
failed to explain the delay in submitting these Hindi-translated
documents. It is, therefore, evident that the present application has
been filed solely for the purpose of filling lacunae in the plaintiff's
case, which is not permissible.
Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order
VII Rule 14 CPC is not acceptable and is hereby rejected.
The case is now listed for defendant's evidence on
13.05.2025."
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, I
do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondents, as no
prejudice would be caused to them by the nature of order which I
proposed to pass.
4. It seems from the impugned order that the documents in
question (stone inscription Sati Silalekh- in Dev Nagri script and
others in Urdu of 1885,1910 and 1930 from the era of Tonk
princely State ) had already been submitted to the Court. Now,
the petitioners seeks production of their Hindi translation for their
proper understanding and assisting the Court. It transpires that,
while rejecting the application, what weighed on the mind of the
learned trial court was that granting of further opportunity to the
petitioner would result in delay of the trial proceedings. No doubt,
[2025:RJ-JD:29066] (4of 4) [CW-12119/2025]
granting of opportunity would have resulted in some delay, but the
same could have been compensated by imposing cost. While
justice delayed is justice denied, at the same time, justice hurried
is justice buried. In the absence of the proper Hindi translation
of the documents the learned court may be face difficulty in
their proper understanding which, in turn, may defeat justice.
5. Ensuring that all crucial evidence is available and the Court
does not face difficulty in it's proper understanding is far more
critical to achieving justice than maintaining rigid adherence to
procedural timelines. Documents seems essential to the
resolution of the dispute and to avoid a potentially incomplete or
flawed judgment.
6. In the premise, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 05.05.2025 (Annex.5) is set aside. The application
under Order 7, Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed. The
plaintiffs (petitioners herein) are permitted to place the
authenticated Hindi translation of the documents in question on
record on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants and
subject to the rights of the respondents to object to their
admissibility or mode of proof in accordance with law.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
41-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
