No. 16379 of 2010 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
22nd October, 2011 HON' BLE MR. J USTI CE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr . B. S. Shek hawat , f or t he pet i t i oner . Chal l enge i n t hi s wr i t pet i t i on i s t o t he or der dat ed 13t h Augus t , 2010, wher eby t he l ear ned Ci v i l J udge ( J D) , Mundawar , Al war , di s mi s s ed t he appl i c at i on f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f under Or der 7 Rul e 14 of CPC f or t ak i ng t he doc ument s on r ec or d.
Hav i ng c ons i der ed t he s ubmi s s i ons made by t he l ear ned c ouns el f or t he pet i t i oner and c ar ef ul l y per us ed t he r el ev ant mat er i al on r ec or d i nc l udi ng t he i mpugned or der , i t i s f ound t hat t he pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f i nt ended t o f i l e c er t ai n doc ument s v i z . agr eement r egi s t er ed s al e- deed i n t he c our t and f i l ed t he appl i c at i on, whi c h s t ood di s mi s s ed, f or t he s i mpl e r eas on t hat t he pet i t i oner f ai l ed t o as s i gn any s at i s f ac t or y r eas on, as t o why di d he not f i l e t hem wi t h t he pl ai nt . 2 Pl ai nt i f f ' s t hr ee wi t nes s es hav e been ex ami ned but nei t her di d he endeav our t o f i l e t hes e doc ument s at t he s t age of f r ami ng t he i s s ue nor dur i ng ev i denc e. He f ai l ed t o c onv i nc e as t o why t hes e doc ument s s houl d be t ak en on r ec or d.
Lear ned c ouns el f or t he pet i t i oner c anv as s ed t hat he had al r eady f i l ed t he phot o- s t at c opi es of bot h t hes e doc ument s , but c er t i f i ed c opi es of t he s ai d doc ument s wer e not av ai l abl e at t hat t i me and t hat was t he r eas on he i mpl or ed t he c our t t o t ak e t he doc ument on r ec or d at t hat s t age.
Lear ned t r i al c our t s eems t o hav e been hi ghl y t ec hni c al i n dec i di ng t he appl i c at i on under Or der 7 Rul e 14 of CPC. I n a s i t uat i on when phot o- s t at c opi es of t he doc ument s had al r eady been f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner i n t he c our t , t hen i n t he i nt er es t of j us t i c e, t he l ear ned t r i al c our t ought t o hav e al l owed t he appl i c at i on of t he pet i t i oner . The i mpugned or der does not s eem t o be j us t and pr oper i n t he f ac t s and c i r c ums t anc es of t he c as e, henc e, t he s ame des er v es t o be s et as i de.
For t he r eas ons s t at ed abov e, t he 3 wr i t pet i t i on s uc c eeds and t he i mpugned or der dat ed 13t h Augus t , 2010, s t ands s et as i de. The l ear ned t r i al c our t i s di r ec t ed t o t ak e t he doc ument s v i z . agr eement r egi s t er ed s al e- deed on r ec or d, i f t hey ar e f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner wi t hi n f i f t een day s f r om t he dat e of r ec ei pt of t he or der .
Cons equent upon t he di s pos al of t he wr i t pet i t i on, t he s t ay appl i c at i on does not s ur v i v e and t he s ame al s o s t ands di s pos ed of , ac c or di ngl y . ( MAHESH BHAGWATI ) , J . Mak/- 44
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 22 Oct 2011. The bench was USTI MAHESH BHAGWATI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.