Dhannaram vs Bheemraj (2026:Rj-Jd:3050)
2026 Latest Caselaw 681 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dhannaram vs Bheemraj (2026:Rj-Jd:3050) on 16 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:3050]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16617/2024

1.       Dhannaram S/o Poona Ram, Aged About 70 Years, 1-S-
         40, Old Housing Board, Pali (Raj.)
2.       Smt. Ganga Devi W/o Dhannaram, Aged About 65 Years,
         1-S-40, Old Housing Board, Pali (Raj.)
3.       Praveen S/o Dhannaram, Aged About 45 Years, 1-S-40,
         Old Housing Board, Pali (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       Bheemraj S/o Ramrakh, 8, Badshah Ka Jhanda, Pali
         (Raj.).
2.       Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Bhimraj, 8, Badshah Ka Jhanda,
         Pali (Raj.).
3.       Suresh Bhansali S/o Parasmal, Aged About 60 Years, 4,
         Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, Marwar, Pali.
4.       Smt.       Premlata       Bhansali        W/o      Suresh     Bhansali,   4,
         Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, Marwar, Pali.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Aidan Choudhary
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Suresh Shrimali



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

16/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the

validity and propriety of the order dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-

15) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pali (learned

trial Court), whereby the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 (A)

read with Section 151 CPC was rejected and the learned Trial

Court refused to take the documents proposed by the petitioner-

defendant on record.

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (2 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

2. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the suit in question has

been filed in the year 2010 for recovery of amount of Rs.30 lacs so

also cancellation of the sale deed executed in relation to part of

land situated in Khasra No.786/3 and also seeking decree of

possession over plot No.84 situated at Maruti Nagar Scheme, Pali.

3. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the plots in question

were subsequently being sold to different individuals by the

respondent-plaintiff and the same has given rise to various civil as

well as criminal proceedings between the present parties as well

as between petitioner-defendant and subsequent purchasers.

4. By way of present application dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure-

14 ) filed under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC, prayer has been made to

take on record the documents pertaining to the proceedings

initiated by subsequent purchasers under Section 145 and 146

Cr.P.C.; sale deeds of the plots sold to the subsequent purchasers;

documents relating to FIR dated 06.06.2019 registered against the

defendant; documents pertaining to criminal case registered by

plaintiff bearing Criminal Case No.262/2009 so also the judgment

passed by the criminal court in the said case as well as the

documents pertaining to Criminal Case No.17/2010 registered by

present petitioner against the plaintiff Bhimraj.

5. The said application was objected to by the respondent-

plaintiff on the ground that the proposed documents are neither

necessary nor relevant for the adjudication of the present suit,

which pertains to recovery of the amount allegedly paid by the

plaintiff to the defendant, as well as possession of Plot No. 84,

which is stated to be in the possession of the defendant. The

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (3 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

application was further objected on the ground that the documents

pertaining to the purchase of plots by other purchasers (who are

not parties to the present suit) as well as the proceedings initiated

by them under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C., are wholly

irrelevant to present case. It was also contended that the

proposed documents relating to inter se criminal proceedings

initiated between the parties are neither relevant nor admissible in

the present civil proceedings. It is further contended that the

application has been filed at a highly belated stage, and just with a

view to delay the suit proceedings.

6. Learned trial Court while passing order dated 18.07.2022 has

rejected the said application by a detailed order, which has been

impugned in the present writ petition.

7. Respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding

maintainability of the present petition on the ground that a

subsequent application dated 22.05.2023 of similar nature being

filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC has

already been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated

21.08.2024 and writ petition challenging the said order has also

been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2024.

8. It is stated that the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 was

not challenged by the petitioner-defendant at the relevant point of

time and has been assailed after a lapse of more than two years,

that too after dismissal of a subsequent application of a similar

nature and during the pendency of the writ petition before this

Court, which has also been dismissed.

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (4 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

9. Apart from the said preliminary objection, learned counsel for

the respondent argued that the impugned order dated 18.07.2022

is a just, valid and well-reasoned order. Referring to the order

dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure-R/1), learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that while deciding the subsequent

application under the same provision, the learned Trial Court duly

took note of the order dated 18.07.2022, which is impugned in the

present writ petition and since said order has already been upheld

by this Hon'ble Court, interference by this Court is not warranted

in the present writ petition.

10. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the following

judgments: -

(i) Moti Lal Dangi Vs. Madhusudan Janwar and Anr. 2008 (2) WLN 124 (Raj.)

(ii) Kishan Chand Bothra & Anr. Vs. Lal Chand Bothra & Ors. 2008 (3) DNJ (Raj) 1270

(iii) Narayanan and Anr. Vs. Mathan Mathai : AIR 1982 Kerala 238

(iv) Onkarmal and Another Vs. Banwarilal & Other : AIR 1962 Raj. 127

(v) Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. Vs. Surya Pratap & Ors.

: 2020 (4) DNJ (SC) 1242

11. While referring to the said judgments, counsel for the

respondent stated that delay in filing the present writ petition in

itself is a ground sufficient for dismissal of the same. It is further

contended that the law is well settled that the documents relating

to criminal proceedings are irrelevant in civil proceedings and civil

court is required to independently decide the matter on its own

merits.

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (5 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

12. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the documents sought to be produced by way of the earlier

application dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure-14) are different from the

documents sought to be produced in the subsequent application,

which was rejected by learned Trial Court vide order dated

21.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that the reason for delay in filing the present petition has been

clearly explained in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, stating that

the delay was caused due to unavoidable circumstances, i.e. an

unfortunate accident involving the petitioner's counsel, who was

handling the matter.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

although the documents in question pertain to criminal

proceedings, yet they are relevant for establishing the status of

possession of the petitioner over the land in question, therefore,

cannot be denied on technical grounds.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

15. Challenging the maintainability of the present writ petition,

counsel for the respondent Mr. Suresh Shrimali vehemently argued

that writ petition has been filed after more than two years from

the passing of the impugned order and no cogent or convincing

reason has been explained for filing the writ petition after such an

inordinate delay.

16. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the

present writ petition is a gross abuse of the process of law and is

nothing but a device to delay the suit proceedings by instituting

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (6 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

one litigation after another. This Court finds that order dated

18.07.2022 has been challenged by way of present writ petition,

filed on 01.10.2024. The petitioner has tried to explain the said

delay on the strength of averment made in paragraph 21 that the

delay was caused due to an unfortunate accident of the

petitioner's counsel who was handling the matter. The said ground

appears to be a desperate attempt to somehow justify the

inordinate delay, however the same clearly lacks any merits. It is

clear that a bald averment regarding the accident of the

petitioner's counsel has been made; but no details regarding date

or nature of the accident or duration for which the petitioner's

counsel was incapacitated have been mentioned in the writ

petition.

16.1. On one hand, counsel for the petitioner stated that due to an

unfortunate accident, the petitioner's counsel could not handle the

matter properly, however, the record of the case reveals that after

dismissal of the application in question, another application under

Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC was filed on 20.05.2023, which was duly

contested by petitioner's counsel and same was rejected vide

order dated 21.08.2024. Thereafter, the said order was challenged

by the petitioner by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.16526/2024 which was dismissed by this Court vide order

dated 18.07.2024.

16.2. In this view of the matter, when the counsel representing

the petitioner was continuously pursuing the litigation even before

this Court, it cannot be presumed that, due to the alleged

accident, the petitioner's counsel was incapacitate to challenge the

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (7 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

order dated 18.07.2022. The reason for delay as mentioned by the

petitioner, therefore, does not appear to be justified.

16.3. The facts of the present case, considered in its chronology,

lead to the irresistible conclusion that after passing of order dated

18.07.2022, the petitioner accepted the same and did not choose

to challenge it. However, after rejection of the subsequent

application of a similar nature by the learned Trial Court vide order

dated 21.08.2024, which was upheld by this Court vide order

dated 08.11.2024, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition

after a lapse of nearly two years.

16.4. The explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in filing

the writ petition is apparently misconceived and same clearly lacks

bonafide and smacks of oblique motive on the part of the

petitioner to somehow stall the suit proceedings.

16.5. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent finds

support from the judgment passed by this Court in Moti Lal

Dangi (supra) wherein the writ petition filed after unexplained

delay of 14 months has been dismissed by this Court. The relevant

para of the same are quoted below:-

"6. It is true that the trial commences from the stage of framing of issues as laid down by the Honble Apex Court and at the same time, Proviso to Order 6 Rule

17 CPC gives power to the Courts to allow amendment but on condition of showing due diligence of the party seeking amendment, than it is not a case where the Court lacks power to allow the amendment at all.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner is inconsistent.

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (8 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

This question will not remain more because of the fact that in certain facts and circumstances, there may be inconsistent and alternate plea also but that depends upon the facts of each case. I do not find any reason to reject this application on this ground.

8. In this case, the plea is a legal plea and could have been taken by learned Counsel for the petitioner who might have drafted the written statement and the Court should be liberal in allowing legal defence in written statement. Therefore, in view of the above reason, it is difficult to blame the petitioner alone for not taking legal defence in original written statement. Therefore, taking a liberal view, the writ petition is allowed, the order of the trial Court dt. 30.08.2007 is set aside and the amendment application is allowed but on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent.''

16.6. Reliance placed by respondent upon the judgment passed in

the case of Kishan Chand Bothra (supra) also acquires

significance wherein this Court has held that writ petitions

challenging the orders passed by the Civil Court ought to be filed

within reasonable time and else are liable to be rejected on that

count alone. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted below:-

"23. Profitable it shall be to recall that before amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, even when a revision petition in relation to an interlocutory orders was maintained on the grounds as spelt out in Section 115(1) CPC and when a case was made out of the impugned order resulting in failure of justice or irreparable injury, as per the requirements of proviso

(b) to Section 115(1) as inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976, the limitation for filing a revision petition under Section 115 CPC had always been 90 days as

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (9 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

per Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963. With the change in the law of procedure as noticed hereinabove, when an interlocutory order passed by a civil Court during the course of a civil litigation is now attempted to be challenged while invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, by the very nature of proceedings, a litigant cannot be acceded the latitude to take up such challenge at any time at his sweet will.

24. Even when no limitation as such is provided for filing a petition for writ yet, for the purpose of the petitions of the present nature, 90 days period as provided for the revision petitions under the Limitation Act could, broadly, be considered to be a reasonable period of time for taking up such challenge, subject to variance on either side of that period in the circumstances of a particular matter. However, and in any case, it cannot be assumed that with amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly to Section 115; and with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai and Salem Advocate, a litigant has been acceded a freedom to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court at any time, thereby putting into uncertainty the very progress of a civil litigation before the subordinate Court. This Court is of opinion that the writ petitions so filed against the orders passed by the civil Courts ought to conform to the reasonable time limit requirement and else are liable to be rejected on this count alone unless sufficient cause is shown for delay.

25. It is noticed that in the present matters, the petitioners in the first place filed a revision petition against the order dated 26.04.2007 as passed in Civil Suit No.44/2005, of course within limitation, but did

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (10 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

not put any challenge to the other two orders of the even date for long despite having obtained the certified copies of the three orders more or less simultaneously, a few days from the date of the order; and, only after notices were issued in the revision petition on 30.10.2007 that the petitioners proceeded to file the writ petitions in other two matters. Noticeable it is, as pointed hereinbefore, that the writ petitions contain even the ground that is relevant for the revision petition.''

16.7. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case and in light

of the law laid down by this Court in the judgments cited above,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ

petition, having been filed after a lapse of two years and three

months without any justifiable explanation for the delay, is not

maintainable.

17. Even on merits, this Court is of the opinion that a detailed,

reasoned, and valid order has been passed by the learned Trial

Court while dismissing the application of the petitioner under

Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC. So far as the documents pertaining to the

sale deeds executed in favour of subsequent purchasers (who are

not party to the suit) as well as the proceedings initiated by the

said purchasers against the petitioner under Section 145 and 146

Cr.P.C. are concerned, same are not at all relevant for adjudication

of the controversy involved in the present suit. The said aspect has

already been considered by the learned Trial Court on the ground

that application preferred by the said purchasers under Order 1

Rule 10 CPC has already been rejected and since they have not

been found as a necessary or proper party to the litigation, the

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (11 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

documents relating to the said individuals are also not relevant in

the present suit proceedings. The learned Trial Court has clearly

dealt with the aspect of the proceedings initiated under Section

145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and refused to take the said documents on

record and the subsequent application so filed by the petitioner

under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC of similar nature was rejected by the

learned trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2024. The said order

has been upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 08.11.2024,

dismissing the writ petition of the present petitioner.

17.1. It is also pertinent to mention that, while deciding the

subsequent application under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC, the learned

trial Court specifically took note of the order impugned in the

present writ petition, and since the said finding has attained

finality, the petitioner's prayer to take the said documents on

record could not be allowed.

17.2. With regard to the other documents sought to be taken on

record, the learned Trial Court has clearly observed that the

documents pertaining to criminal proceedings are neither relevant

nor admissible in civil proceedings. The finding so recorded by the

learned Trial Court is fully supported by the judgments rendered in

the cases of Narayanan (supra), Onkarmal (supra) as well as

Biraji @ Brijraji (supra).

17.3. Although counsel for the petitioner stated that the

documents relating to criminal case are relevant to establish the

possession of the petitioner-defendant over plot in question.

However, the factum of possession has expressly been mentioned

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (12 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

in the plaint itself and specific prayer has been made seeking a

decree of possession from the defendant.

18. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the learned Trial

Court, while declining leave to produce the documents as

furnished, has recorded good and cogent reasons in support of the

impugned order; therefore, the same does not warrant

interference by this Court.

19. The petitioner has failed to establish any error apparent on

the face of the record or any jurisdictional error being committed

by the learned trial Court in passing the order impugned,

warranting the interference of this Court. The scope of interference

by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction is very limited. The

contours of Article 227 of the Constitution of India have well being

delineated ad nauseum and reference may be made for the

purpose to some salutary pronouncements such as Shalini Shyam

Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329. Jai Singh v.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 385. Surya Dev Rai v.

Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 - instead of burdening this

judgment with copious quotes therefrom. It has been broadly held

therein that the interlocutory orders of the courts below not be

interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless

such orders are palpably vitiated by capriciousness, perversity,

error of jurisdiction or such like root causes leading to manifest

injustice. The amendment to Section 115 CPC effective 1.7.2002

vide the Code of Civil Procedure (Amended) Act, 1999 was

intended to be a prescription to overcome delays in trials of civil

suits which delays are notorious and adversely commented on

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3050] (13 of 13) [CW-16617/2024]

publically. The salutary provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution

of India cannot be allowed to be casually invoked to circumvent

legislative intent clear from the CPC amendment effective

1.7.2002. No doubt the court's supervisory jurisdiction under

Article 227 is ever present but its exercise has to be guarded and

confined to situations referred to above. None of the aforesaid

situations obtain in the instant case.

20. The learned trial Court, in its order, has clearly observed that

the trial is pending for more than 10 years and since the suit has

been classified as targeted case, the petitioner-defendant filed

various applications merely to delay the proceedings. This Court

finds that the applications so preferred by the petitioner-defendant

are not only misconceived but also gross abuse of process of law.

21. In view of the observations made above, no ground for

interference by this Court is made out.

22. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

23. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed of.

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 10-praveen/-

(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 06:42:27 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)