BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Shri Radhamohan, Dattak Son Badrinarayan Ji, Resident

Judgment

1. Shri Radhamohan, Dattak Son Badrinarayan Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 34, Sudhama Marg, Rajhans Colony, Scheme- Ii, Brhampuri, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Smt. Gulab Devi, Wife Of Late Shri Badrinarayan Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 34, Sudhama Marg, Rajhans Colony, Scheme-Ii, Brhampuri, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

Smt. Kamla Devi, D/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, W/o Shri Ramprakash Ji Natani, Resident Of Plot No. C-65, Prem Colony, Nehru Nagar, Panipetch, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4. Smt. Pushpa Devi, W/o Shri Rambabu Dangyach, D/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 645, Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

5. Smt. Vimla, W/o Shri Nandkishor Ji, D/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Resident Of Chaudhary Bahwan, Opp. Hawamahal, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

6. Rajdhani Bardana Corporation, Proprietor Shri Vijay Kumar Punmiya, S/o Shri Bastimal Ji, Resident Of D-84, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

7. R. P. And Sons, Proprietor Shri Ramkrishan Bumb, Resident Of D-84, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

8. Prakash Bardana Trading Company, Proprietor Shri Baldev Singh Bilochi, S/o Shri Udharam Ji, Resident Of D-83, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

9. Jayanti Lal Oswal, S/o Shri Gansh Mal Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 83-84, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

10. Ram Moahn, S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Resident Of P.no. D-83-84, New Anaj Mandi, Outside Chandpole Gate, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

11. Smt. Nangi Devi W/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Resident Of [2025:RJ-JP:4403] (2 of 5) [CW-7784/2019] P.no. D-83-84, New Anaj Mandi, Outside Chandpole Gate, Jaipur (Deceased During Pendency Of The Suit). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7905/2019 Radharaman S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Resident Of P.no. D-83- 84, New Anaj Mandi, Outside Chandpole Gate, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Versus ----Petitioner

1. Shri Radhamohan, Dattak Son Badrinarayan Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 34, Sudhama Marg, Rajhans Colony, Scheme- Ii, Brhampuri, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Smt. Gulab Devi, Wife Of Late Shri Badrinarayan Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 34, Sudhama Marg, Rajhans Colony, Scheme-Ii, Brhampuri, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

3. Smt. Kamla Devi, D/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, W/o Shri Ramprakash Ji Natani, Resident Of Plot No. C-65, Prem Colony, Nehru Nagar, Panipetch, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4. Smt. Pushpa Devi, W/o Shri Rambabu Dangyach, D/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 645, Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

5. Smt. Vimla, W/o Shri Nandkishor Ji, D/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Resident Of Chaudhary Bahwan, Opp. Hawamahal, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

6. Rajdhani Bardana Corporation, Proprietor Shri Vijay Kumar Punmiya, S/o Shri Bastimal Ji, Resident Of D-84, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

7. R. P. And Sons, Proprietor Shri Ramkrishan Bumb, Resident Of D-84, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

8. Prakash Bardana Trading Company, Proprietor Shri Baldev Singh Bilochi, S/o Shri Udharam Ji, Resident Of D-83, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

9. Jayanti Lal Oswal, S/o Shri Gansh Mal Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 83-84, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

10. Ram Moahn, S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Resident Of P.No. D-83- 84, New Anaj Mandi, Outside Chandpole [2025:RJ-JP:4403] (3 of 5) [CW-7784/2019] Gate, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

11. Smt. Nangi Devi W/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Resident of P.No. D-83-84, New Anaj Mandi, Outside Chandpole Gate, Jaipur (Deceased During Pendency Of The Suit) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapasvi Vashistha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandesh Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL 31/01/2025 Order

1. Both writ petitions have been listed in the orders category awaiting service of notices upon respondents No.3 to 11, however, counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents No.1 and 2, pointed out that the proceedings of the present civil suit, filed wayback in the year 2004 are stayed, with the consent of counsel for petitioner the writ petitions have been heard finally on merits at this stage itself and would stand decided by this common order.

2. Both writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning a common order dated 05.05.2018 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.152/2012 (Old Suit No.138/2005), dismissing two applications of petitioner: (i) application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC; and (ii) another application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.

3. It appears that petitioner filed a civil suit for partition and in counter, respondents have filed a suit for possession wayback in the year 2004. Both civil suits have been consolidated. In both the suits, consolidated issues were framed wayback in the year 2006 [2025:RJ-JP:4403] (4 of 5) [CW-7784/2019] and thereafter, plaintiff has completed his evidence in the year 2012 and defendant also produced his evidence in chief. The matter was pending at the stage of cross-examination of defendant.

4. It appears that at this belated stage, plaintiff moved two applications referred hereinabove. By way of application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, plaintiff sought to produce a rent note, voter list, and one obituary note as published in the newspaper. By way of another application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, plaintiff proposed five additional issues to be framed.

5. The trial Court dismissed both the applications by a common order dated 05.05.2018 with findings and observations that the applications are malicious and have been filed to defer the cross- examination of defendant. The Trial Court held and observed that the documents proposed to be filed, are not related to any subsequent events nor have any material relevance to the issues involved in the present suits, which are intricate questions of title and possession of suit property. As far as, issues proposed by plaintiff are concerned, it was observed by the trial Court that the issues already framed, covers the respective case of both the parties as pleaded on their respective pleadings.

6. Having perused the order impugned, it is apparent that both the applications were filed by petitioner-plaintiff at belated stage, after conclusion of plaintiff's evidence and at the stage of cross- examination of defendant, the plaintiff has not assigned any justified reason for delay and for not filing these applications earlier.

7. The issues in the present suits have been framed wayback in the year 2006. Obviously, the plaintiff was well aware about these [2025:RJ-JP:4403] (5 of 5) [CW-7784/2019] issues, however, the additional issues have been proposed by the plaintiff in the year 2017, i.e., after expiry of 11 years, that too, at the stage of defendants' evidence. Such conduct of plaintiff has been deprecated by the trial Court, with observation in explicit terms that the issues already framed, cover the controversy arrived at between the parties on the basis of their respective pleadings.

8. As far as the proposed documents, sought to be produced by the plaintiff is concerned, the trial Court has clearly observed that the documents are not relevant to the controversy involved in these suits in respect of partition and possession between the parties.

9. This Court finds that the order impugned is an elaborate and well-reasoned order. The trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction well within parameters of law while dismissing both the applications, which do not lead to any miscarriage of justice. The order impugned does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. In view of above, the writ petitions lack substance on merits and are hereby dismissed.

11. The interim stay order dated 02.05.2019 is hereby vacated.

12. Since suits were filed way back in the year 2004 and pending at the stage of evidence of defendant, the trial Court is directed to proceed and decide the suits expeditiously, in accordance with law.

13. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

14. Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the trial Court forthwith. SOURAV /46-47 (SUDESH BANSAL),J