Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jasmel Singh vs Sandeep Singh Gill (2025:Rj-Jd:13155) on 5 March, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:13155]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4853/2025

Jasmel Singh S/o Shri Karnel Singh, Aged About 56 Years,
Resident Of Thakrawali (13 L.n.p. Ii), Tehsil And District Sri
Ganganagar.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Sandeep Singh Gill S/o Shri Satnam Singh Gill, Resident Of
Vraddhashram Road, Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pankaj Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
                                Mr. Narendra Thanvi



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

05/03/2025

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated

20.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Sri

Ganganagar (hereinafter as 'trial court') in Civil Suit No.13/2016

whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application filed

by the petitioner under Order XV Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter as 'CPC'). The instant petition has

been filed seeking following relief:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that instant writ petition preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 21.01.2025 as passed by the leamed Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar may kindly be set aside and quashed and the application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC may kindly be allowed in toto. Any other appropriate order which is favorable to the

[2025:RJ-JD:13155] (2 of 6) [CW-4853/2025]

petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner-defendant."

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent

(Plaintiff) filed a suit (Annex.1) for specific performance of

agreement dated 20.01.2015 and perpetual injunction against the

petitioner (defendant) before the learned trial court. The petitioner

also filed written his statement. The learned trial court framed

issues on 02.02.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an

amended written statement on 26.03.2019 (Annex.2) with the

leave of the learned trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an

application (Annex.3) under Order XVI Rule 1 (3) of the CPC to

summon Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra, as witness, stating therein that

his name could not be included in the list of witnesses as the fact

of initiation of proceedings by him against the petitioner regarding

the dishonour of cheque has come on record by way of amended

written statement (Annex.2) subsequent to the framing of issues

on 02.02.2017 and his presence is necessary as he is a witness to

the agreement dated 20.01.2015 and his testimony is relevant for

the just disposal of the suit. However, the learned trial court vide

order dated 20.01.2025 (Annex.5) rejected the application

(Annex.3). Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the

instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is a victim of fraud and ill-will of the respondent. He submits that

petitioner's friend Mr. Manoj Kumar took a loan of Rs.4,00,000/-

from Mr. Krishna Guneja for which the petitioner agreed to be a

guarantor and furnished signed blank stamp papers; two blank

cheques and other signed blank papers to Mr. Krishna Guneja. He

submits that Mr. Krishna Guneja in collusion with the respondent

[2025:RJ-JD:13155] (3 of 6) [CW-4853/2025]

misused these documents and forged the agreement to sale dated

20.01.2015. He submits that the petitioner neither knows the

respondent nor have never met him before. He submits that Mr.

Ashok Kumar Dawra, who is a witness to the agreement to sale

dated 20.01.2015, has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner by

misusing the cheque, which was furnished by the petitoner to Mr.

Krishna Guneja for the purpose of guarantee. He, thus, submits

that Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra is a very important and necessary

witness and his testimony would bring forth the truthful story of

the genesis of the entire suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent has opposed the application (Annex.3) on the ground

that the petitioner is seeking to summon Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra

in capacity of defence witness, whereas the petitioner has not

sought to summon Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra in capacity of defence

witness but for the reason that his testimony is important for just

adjudication of the suit. He submits that the respondent is trying

to suppress Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra who can clearly demonstrate

before this Hon'ble Court that the respondent has fabricated the

agreement to sale dated 20.01.2015 by misusing the documents

furnished by the petitioner as a guarantee to loan taken by his

friend.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the

learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application (Annex.3)

on the ground that another witness to the agreement to sale

dated 20.01.2015 has already been examined by the respondent.

[2025:RJ-JD:13155] (4 of 6) [CW-4853/2025]

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the Suit in the present case is for specific performance of contract

and evidence of plaintiff is already complete and petitioner has

already exhibited documents. He submits that the petitioner has

not been able to explain the purpose and relevancy of calling this

witness and the documents are true in nature. He submits that

the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application

(Annex.3). He also submits that the petitioner is only using

delaying tactics and filing frivolous application in order to prolong

the case. He places reliance on the following judgments:

Dr. Amitabha Sen Vs. M/s Sports World International Ltd.

and Ors., 2008 4 CivCCc 267; Dina Nath Vs. Shanti Devi,

2006 2 CivCC 598; Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and Anr. Vs.

Kamal Dora, 2001 1 CivCC 299.

7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

8. This court finds that the learned trial court after taking note

of the fact that Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra is a witness to the

agreement to sale dated 20.01.2015 and also a witness related to

the respondnet-Plaintiff, has examined the purpose for which the

petitioner is seeking to summon Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra. The

learned trial court has observed that the reason, for which

petitioner has sought to summon Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra, does

not appear to be bona fide as the petitioner has averred in his

application (Annex.3) that it necessary to summon Mr. Ashok

Kumar Dawra to certify the documents relating to proceedings

initiated by him (Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra) for dishonour of cheque

against the petitioner before Judicial Magistrate-I, Sriganganagar,

[2025:RJ-JD:13155] (5 of 6) [CW-4853/2025]

as these documents have already been exhibited as Ex.A1 to

Ex.A10 and the respondent has also admitted this fact that the

said proceedings have been initiated by Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra

and are pending. The learned trial court has also observed that

the proceeding related to dishonour of cheque is to be adjudicated

by the concerned court and therefore, the petitioner cannot be

permitted to examine Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra in the present suit

in relation to the dishonour of cheque. The learned trial court has

also observed that one of the witnesses to the agreement to sale

has already been examined by the respondent and the failure on

the part of respondent to examine Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra, if

affects the merits of the present suit, the same can be adjudged

on the merits of the present suit. Thus, after considering these

facts, the learned trial court has observed that the petitioner

cannot be permitted to summon Mr. Ashok Kumar Dawra for the

reasons mentioned in the application (Annex.3).

9. This court finds that the petitioner sought to summon Mr.

Ashok Kumar Dawra for the purpose of certifying the documents

relating to the proceedings for dishonour of cheque initiated by Mr.

Ashok Kumar Dawra against the petitioner however, it is admitted

position that the documents in this respect has already been

exhibited as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 and the respondent has also

admitted the fact that the proceedings for dishonour of cheque

have been initiated against the petitioner by Mr. Ashok Kumar

Dawra. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly observed that

the purpose for which the petitioner sought to summon Mr. Ashok

Kumar Dawra does not appear to be bona fide.

                                    [2025:RJ-JD:13155]                     (6 of 6)                          [CW-4853/2025]



                                   10.   It   is    important      to     note       here     that    the     power    of

superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is

supervisory and not appellate and must be exercised sparingly in

appropriate cases, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within

the limits of their authority. In the present case this court does not

find any error in the impugned order therefore, the instant petition

does not require interference by this court.

11. In view of the above, the instant petition being devoid of

merit, is dismissed.

12. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 36-/devensh/-