Laxmi Vilas, Tonk Road, Jaipur v. Ashok Kumar Saini S/o

1/4. Smt. Indu Saini W/o Vinod Saini D/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Saini, At Present R/o - B-180, Anadpuri, Aadarsh Nagar Jaipur. 1/5. Smt. Babita Saini W/o Sh. Babulal Saini D/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Saini, R/o 62 Sethi Colony, Saini Colony, Suraj Nagar Ke Piche, Sanganer, Jaipur. 1/6. Miss. Savita Saini D/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Saini, R/o 10-B, Yati Ji Ki Bagichi, Heera Bagh, Opposite Hotel Laxmi Vilas, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Plaintiff-Petitioners Versus

1. Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Shri Kishori Lal Saini, House No. 1, Yati Ji Ki Bagichi, Near Family Planning Centre, Heera Bagh, Opposite Hotel Laxmi Vilas, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

2. Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Deputy Commissioner, Moti Dungari Zone, Ghat Gate Jaipur ----Defendants-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raunak Singhvi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA [2025:RJ-JP:38705] 17/09/2025 (2 of 7) Order [CW-11757/2025]

1. The present civil misc. writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 13.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Civil judge & Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by learned Trial Court in Original Civil Suit No. 390/2013 (105/2025), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for reopening of plaintiff’s evidence, was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the deceased plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents in which it was pleaded that the deceased plaintiff purchased a plot with total area of 146.94 sq. yd. through a registered sale deed dated

19.06.1979. In the eastern side of the plot, there was a government land separated by a small ally of six and half feet width; in West side, there was the house of Mr. Subodh Jain; in North side, it was Bapana House and in the South side, there was public road. Opposite to the plaintiff’s house in the southern side, there is a house of Mr. Satish Gupta, and adjacent to him, is the house of respondent No. 1. In the suit, the plaintiff pleaded that respondent No. 1 be restrained from encroaching upon the public road via injunction and respondent No. 2 be directed to remove the encroachment to keep the road open for public use.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff-petitioner submits that the deceased plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (3 of 7) [CW-11757/2025] CPC, which was allowed on 03.09.2024 at the cost of Rs. 2000/-. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff passed away on

09.11.2020 leaving petitioner Nos.1/1 to 1/6 as his legal representatives, who were substituted in the plaint.

4. The learned Trial Court closed the evidence of plaintiff on 13.02.2025 by holding that in spite of several opportunities afforded to the plaintiff-petitioners, including an opportunity on cost, the plaintiff-petitioners failed to produce their evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioners filed an application on

15.03.2025 under Section 151 CPC for reopening of evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2025 and posted the matter for defendant evidence. Thus, aggrieved with the said two orders dated

13.02.2025 and 30.05.2025, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court imposed the cost just once vide order dated 03.09.2024, post which, no cost was imposed. The fact that the matter could not proceed for two years due to Covid-19 Pandemic, was allegedly not taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that not allowing the opportunity to reopen the evidence of plaintiff, would create hurdles in the dispensation of justice, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court may kindly be set aside.

7. Heard. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and also perused the material made available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (4 of 7) [CW-11757/2025]

8. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and the facts on record, the Court has to examine whether the powers under Section 151 CPC be invoked to allow reopening of plaintiff’s evidence when sufficient opportunities have already been provided.

9. In this case, the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC vide order dated 30.05.2025, held that the plaintiff-petitioners did not submit their evidence for the last ten years, even after being given a total of fourteen (14) opportunities. Further, the last opportunities were given on 06.01.2025 and 22.01.2025, however even after that, neither the evidence was produced, nor sufficient reasons were provided/given for not producing the evidence.

10. In matters relating to recall of evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others, (2016) 11 SCC 296, relying upon its own judgment passed in K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275, held that power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court. The relevant paras are as under:- “14. ...There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross- examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (5 of 7) [CW-11757/2025] otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of any provision providing for reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the court, the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination... ...

15. ...(a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognises the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is “right” and undo what is “wrong”, that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process. (b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, Section 151 recognises and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances. (c) A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or in a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code. (d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the legislature. [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (6 of 7) [CW-11757/2025] (e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the Code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief. (f) The power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.”

11. In the backdrop of the above legal position, the discussions made and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this petition, the Court is of the opinion that allowing further opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioners would mean encouraging the tactics used for unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. The maxim, vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, according to which the law must aid those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, cannot be ignored. In the opinion of the Court, in such like matters, no lenient approach would be justified when the Trial Courts are already burdened with numerous cases and genuine litigants await justice from judiciary. Thus, powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used as a carte blanche to grant any relief in a routinely manner.

12. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (7 of 7) [CW-11757/2025]

13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed and the orders dated 13.02.2025 and 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in Original Civil Suit No. 390/2013 (105/2025), are confirmed and upheld.

14. The stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. ARTI SHARMA /53 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J

1/4. Smt. Indu Saini W/o Vinod Saini D/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Saini, At Present R/o - B-180, Anadpuri, Aadarsh Nagar Jaipur. 1/5. Smt. Babita Saini W/o Sh. Babulal Saini D/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Saini, R/o 62 Sethi Colony, Saini Colony, Suraj Nagar Ke Piche, Sanganer, Jaipur. 1/6. Miss. Savita Saini D/o Late Sh. Mahesh Kumar Saini, R/o 10-B, Yati Ji Ki Bagichi, Heera Bagh, Opposite Hotel Laxmi Vilas, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Plaintiff-Petitioners Versus

1. Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Shri Kishori Lal Saini, House No. 1, Yati Ji Ki Bagichi, Near Family Planning Centre, Heera Bagh, Opposite Hotel Laxmi Vilas, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

2. Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Deputy Commissioner, Moti Dungari Zone, Ghat Gate Jaipur ----Defendants-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raunak Singhvi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA [2025:RJ-JP:38705] 17/09/2025 (2 of 7) Order [CW-11757/2025]

1. The present civil misc. writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 13.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Civil judge & Judicial Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by learned Trial Court in Original Civil Suit No. 390/2013 (105/2025), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for reopening of plaintiff’s evidence, was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the deceased plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents in which it was pleaded that the deceased plaintiff purchased a plot with total area of 146.94 sq. yd. through a registered sale deed dated

19.06.1979. In the eastern side of the plot, there was a government land separated by a small ally of six and half feet width; in West side, there was the house of Mr. Subodh Jain; in North side, it was Bapana House and in the South side, there was public road. Opposite to the plaintiff’s house in the southern side, there is a house of Mr. Satish Gupta, and adjacent to him, is the house of respondent No. 1. In the suit, the plaintiff pleaded that respondent No. 1 be restrained from encroaching upon the public road via injunction and respondent No. 2 be directed to remove the encroachment to keep the road open for public use.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff-petitioner submits that the deceased plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (3 of 7) [CW-11757/2025] CPC, which was allowed on 03.09.2024 at the cost of Rs. 2000/-. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff passed away on

09.11.2020 leaving petitioner Nos.1/1 to 1/6 as his legal representatives, who were substituted in the plaint.

4. The learned Trial Court closed the evidence of plaintiff on 13.02.2025 by holding that in spite of several opportunities afforded to the plaintiff-petitioners, including an opportunity on cost, the plaintiff-petitioners failed to produce their evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioners filed an application on

15.03.2025 under Section 151 CPC for reopening of evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2025 and posted the matter for defendant evidence. Thus, aggrieved with the said two orders dated

13.02.2025 and 30.05.2025, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court imposed the cost just once vide order dated 03.09.2024, post which, no cost was imposed. The fact that the matter could not proceed for two years due to Covid-19 Pandemic, was allegedly not taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that not allowing the opportunity to reopen the evidence of plaintiff, would create hurdles in the dispensation of justice, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court may kindly be set aside.

7. Heard. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and also perused the material made available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (4 of 7) [CW-11757/2025]

8. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and the facts on record, the Court has to examine whether the powers under Section 151 CPC be invoked to allow reopening of plaintiff’s evidence when sufficient opportunities have already been provided.

9. In this case, the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC vide order dated 30.05.2025, held that the plaintiff-petitioners did not submit their evidence for the last ten years, even after being given a total of fourteen (14) opportunities. Further, the last opportunities were given on 06.01.2025 and 22.01.2025, however even after that, neither the evidence was produced, nor sufficient reasons were provided/given for not producing the evidence.

10. In matters relating to recall of evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others, (2016) 11 SCC 296, relying upon its own judgment passed in K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275, held that power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court. The relevant paras are as under:- “14. ...There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross- examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (5 of 7) [CW-11757/2025] otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of any provision providing for reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the court, the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination... ...

15. ...(a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognises the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is “right” and undo what is “wrong”, that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process. (b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, Section 151 recognises and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances. (c) A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or in a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code. (d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the legislature. [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (6 of 7) [CW-11757/2025] (e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the Code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief. (f) The power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.”

11. In the backdrop of the above legal position, the discussions made and also taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and prayer made in this petition, the Court is of the opinion that allowing further opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioners would mean encouraging the tactics used for unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. The maxim, vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, according to which the law must aid those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, cannot be ignored. In the opinion of the Court, in such like matters, no lenient approach would be justified when the Trial Courts are already burdened with numerous cases and genuine litigants await justice from judiciary. Thus, powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used as a carte blanche to grant any relief in a routinely manner.

12. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:38705] (7 of 7) [CW-11757/2025]

13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed and the orders dated 13.02.2025 and 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in Original Civil Suit No. 390/2013 (105/2025), are confirmed and upheld.

14. The stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. ARTI SHARMA /53 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J