In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
Civil Writ Petition No.13918//2011
Ramdas Trust Versus Anoop Devi & Ors
Date of Order ::: 13/10/2011
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, for petitioner (plaintiff)
Mr. Sandeep Jain, for respondent
Instant petition is directed against order dt.19/09/2011 (Ann.4) passed by Additional District Judge, Malpura (Tonk) rejecting plaintiff’s application dt.13/09/2011 U/O 7 R.14(3), CPC.
It has come on record that plaintiff (petitioner) filed suit for declaration & permanent injunction before the trial Court way back in the year 1995 and after written statement was filed and issues being framed, the evidence was recorded and ample opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff for recording their evidence. However, after the defendant’s evidence being closed on 05/05/2011, opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff while granting four adjournments to lead evidence in rebuttal but it appears that when the matter has ripen for hearing in an old case pending since the year 1995, at this stage, application was filed by plaintiff U/O 7, R.14(3), CPC on 13/09/2011 for taking certain documents on record, which according to him, relate to the year 2004 & 2006. However, taking note of submissions made, and material on record, learned trial Court vide order dt.19/09/2011 observed in para 5 that apart from it being old case of the year 1995, despite ample opportunity (120 times) being afforded to the plaintiff to lead evidence, besides opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal even after closure of defendant’s evidence and after the matter has ripen for hearing and at this belated stage, instant application came to be filed for taking certain documents relating to the year 2004 & 2006 on record. In support of submissions, Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Shiv Charanlal through L/Rs Vs,. Lakhan Lal (2007(UC) WLC p.545) and taking assistance thereof, Counsel further submits that the delay cannot be considered to be sole basis to reject application for taking relevant documents on record.
It has also been informed to this Court that the matter is being taken for final hearing on day to day basis. Even otherwise, nothing has been brought on record to justify the filing of documents at a belated stage in the year 2011.
However, this Court finds substance that
mere delay cannot be considered to be basis for rejection of prayer for taking documents on record. But, learned trial Court in the order has not taken note of the factum of delay in isolation but has also looked into the relevancy of documents which the plaintiff seeks to bring on record, which in no manner relate to the matter for being adjudicated. That apart, in the instant matter, as taken note of by learned trial Court, application in the year 2011 at belated stage appears to be filed only for deferring the matter for one or the other reason, which cannot be justified after almost 17 years while the matter has ripen for final hearing, which may otherwise deserve to be disposed of. As informed, the matter is being taken up for final hearing on day to day basis. This Court finds no manifest error on the face of record which may warrant interference in the order impugned.
Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p3/
13918CW2011Oct13Ds.doc