Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hukamichand Nagda vs The Urban Improvement Trust ... on 28 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26223]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10011/2025
Hukamichand Nagda S/o Late Shri Chunnilal Ji Nagda, Aged
About 70 Years, Resident Of Shivnagar Parda, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Urban Improvement Trust, Through Its Secretary
Urban Improvement Trust Udaipur (Now Udaipur
Development Authority, Udaipur).
2. The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (Now
Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Tatia
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
28/05/2025
1. The petitioner (plaintiff) seeks quashing of an order dated
02.05.2025 (Annex.-6), whereby the learned trial court rejected
his application under Order 7, Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC
for taking documents on record.
2. Civil suit before the learned trial Court is for permanent
injunction against the defendants/respondents. It was filed on
27.06.2014.
2.1. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed
an application under Order 7, Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC
seeking production of certain documents on records in the original
suit. The defendants/respondents did not submit any reply to the
said application.
[2025:RJ-JD:26223] (2 of 5) [CW-10011/2025]
3. For ease of reference, translation of relevant portion of the
impugned order dated 02.05.2025 (as provided) is as under:-
"Both parties through their respective counsels were present.
On 24.04.2025, an application was submitted stating that the original
copperplate document (Tamrapatra) had already been produced
before the court. A certified copy of the same was enclosed with the
application. Therefore, it was prayed that the certified copy be taken
on record, and the original Tamrapatra be returned.
Both parties were heard on the said petition. In compliance
with the court's earlier order dated 26.03.2025, the original
Tamrapatra was submitted by Ganesh Lal himself on 19.04.2025 and
was placed in safe custody by the court staff. A certified copy of the
original has been duly obtained and submitted before the court. In
view of this, the original Tamrapatra is ordered to be returned to
Ganesh Lal.
At this stage, the plaintiff's counsel submitted a fresh
application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. A copy of the application was furnished to the
defendant's counsel. Both sides were heard on the matter.
Reiterating the facts mentioned in the application, the
plaintiff's counsel submitted that the original Tamrapatra, which had
earlier been summoned by the court, has been produced, and the
plaintiff now seeks to place its Hindi translation on record.
Additionally, it was stated that a previous proceeding (Case No.
549/1971) had been instituted by the defendants for a portion of the
disputed land, and the Tehsildar, UIT Udaipur, passed an order on
30.11.1971. Further, a civil suit (No. 80/1997) had been filed in the
Court of Civil Judge (North), Udaipur regarding declaration and
permanent injunction, followed by appeals culminating in orders
dated 26.07.2005 by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur and
04.10.2007 by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. The plaintiff
contends that these judicial pronouncements are necessary for
adjudication of the present suit. Also, a letter dated 29.01.2013
written by the defendant to the Deputy Secretary, Government of
Rajasthan regarding 90% construction on Arazi No. 531 should also
be taken on record.
The defendant did not file a written reply to the application but
raised oral objections during the hearing.
The arguments were considered, and the application along with
the case file was carefully examined. Upon review of relevant law, it is
observed that the plaintiff seeks to place on record the Hindi
translation of the Tamrapatra and the letter dated 29.01.2013 from
the UIT to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Rajasthan--both of
which are relevant to the plaintiff's pleadings and are therefore
justifiably allowed to be taken on record.
As regards the judicial precedents referenced in Case No.
549/1971, Civil Suit No. 80/1997, and subsequent appellate orders
[2025:RJ-JD:26223] (3 of 5) [CW-10011/2025]
dated 26.07.2005 and 04.10.2007, the Court finds that the plaintiff
has not made any specific reference to these in the pleadings.
Therefore, these documents do not form part of the plaintiff's
pleadings. Hon'ble Supreme Court's in Srinivas Raghavendrarao
Desai (Dead) v. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok & Ors., 2024 INSC 165,
clearly held that "No party can lead evidence beyond pleadings."
Thus, in view of the above, the application under Order 7 Rule
14 read with Section 151 CPC is partially allowed. The Hindi
translation of the Tamrapatra and the letter dated 29.01.2013 are
taken on record. The remaining part of the application is rejected.
Application stands disposed of accordingly."
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, I do
not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondent, as no
prejudice would be caused to them by the nature of order which I
proposed to pass.
5. Petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, inter
alia, stating therein that the documents sought to be placed on
record are necessary to support their case. These include the
original copperplate inscription (Tamrapatra), which was
summoned by the court and presented on 02.04.2025, along with
a Mewari transcription and a certified Hindi translation. An order in
year 1971 passed by the Tehsildar's Court declared the disputed
land as revenue-free (Mafi land) and held that the possession of
the opposite party was not unauthorized. This decision, binding on
the defendants, is relevant to the present case. Subsequently, a
judgment from a 2001 civil suit in favor of the plaintiff was upheld
in subsequent appeals, including by the Rajasthan High Court in
2007. These decisions are significant and necessary for the
current dispute. Additionally, a certified copy of a 2013 letter from
the Urban Improvement Trust to the Rajasthan Government,
concerning regularization of built-up land on Arazi No. 531,
supports the plaintiff's case. A photocopy had earlier been
[2025:RJ-JD:26223] (4 of 5) [CW-10011/2025]
submitted during the temporary injunction stage. All documents
are either originals or certified copies that were previously
submitted with due diligence. Their inclusion is necessary for a fair
and just resolution of the case. Admitting them will not harm the
defendants, who will have an opportunity to respond. These
documents are directly relevant to the case and should be
accepted as evidence.
6. 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, granting of opportunity would have
resulted in 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. Without proper evidence,
being adduced before the learned trial court, the adjudication on
the issues involved, may result in erroneous findings.
7. The documents that the plaintiff sought to place on record,
including the original Tamrapatra, the 1971 order by the
Tehsildar, subsequent court judgments, and the 2013 letter from
the Urban Improvement Trust, are all directly relevant to the
plaintiff's claim. These materials support the narrative of title qua
the disputed land. Their inclusion is essential for a fair and
comprehensive adjudication of the matter. Moreover, the plaintiff
had already submitted these documents alongwith his application
and brought them to the court's notice at the earliest opportunity,
with due diligence, showing that there was no attempt to ambush
or delay proceedings unfairly. The defendants would still retain the
right to contest them during the trial, of course, if they so desire
[2025:RJ-JD:26223] (5 of 5) [CW-10011/2025]
and in accordance with law. Thus, no real prejudice would be
caused by allowing them on record.
8. Ensuring that all crucial evidence is available is far more
critical to achieving justice than maintaining rigid adherence to
procedural timelines. Documents are essential to the resolution of
the dispute and to avoid a potentially incomplete or flawed
judgment.
9. In the premise, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 02.05.2025 is set aside. The application under Order
7, Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed. The plaintiff
(petitioner herein) is permitted to place the documents in support
of his pleadings on record on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the
defendants and subject to the rights of the respondents to object
to the same being expected in accordance with law.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
64-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
