Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 140 (RAJ)

Habib v. Gulab Nabi

2019-01-10

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitionerplaintiff whereby the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The petitioner-plaintiff had filed an application wherein it was mentioned that in a suit for permanent injunction, the relevant documents two photographs of the property house were filed. It was further averred in the application that there was one Compact Disk (CD) which was also prepared but the same could not be produced along with the suit. It was prayed by the petitioner that in the interest of justice, the CD of the photographs dated 13.08.2009 may be taken on record. 2. The Court below found that the petitioner had filed successive applications under zCPC and he had also not explained the delay for taking CD on record as the suit was pending since 2009. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Daya Ram Choudhary appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 (Annex.5) has wrongly been passed and the Court below ought to have considered that the CD concerned was in respect of the property in dispute house and it was only in relation to corroborate the photographs which were already part of the record. Learned counsel submitted that it is a suit filed by the petitioner himself and there was no question of causing any delay. 4. Per contra, Mr. Arvind Samdariya, the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submitted that this Court may not like to interfere in the instant case as the petitioner-plaintiff is guilty of filing successive applications time & again to delay disposal of the suit. Learned counsel also submitted that the interim injunction has been granted by the Trial Court in favour of the petitionerplaintiff and accordingly every effort is being made to delay final adjudication of the suit. Learned counsel submitted that there are successive applications filed under Order VII ` 14 CPC and the Trial Court has taken proper view while passing the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court finds that the CD concerned which is sought to be brought on record admittedly relates to the two photographs which were already filed along with the suit as documents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court finds that the CD concerned which is sought to be brought on record admittedly relates to the two photographs which were already filed along with the suit as documents. This Court further finds that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents-defendants in case, the CD is taken on record. This Court further finds that the respondents-defendants would have full right to rebut any evidence which is brought on record by the petitioner-plaintiff. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants that filing of successive applications is delaying disposal of the suit. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondentsdefendants that interim order is operating against them and as such, the endeavour of the petitioner-plaintiff to delay the suit, needs to be discouraged. 9. This Court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter, deems it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Trial Court; allows the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and the compact disk (CD) which has been filed along with the application is ordered to be taken on record; and the respondents-defendants are given full liberty to lead evidence or rebut the evidence which is led by the petitioner-plaintiff. 10. This Court, while allowing the present writ petition, finds that some reasonable cost is required to be given to the respondents- defendants and accordingly, it is directed that a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) may be paid to the respondentsdefendants. 11. This Court before parting with the order would like to observe that the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is pending for adjudication since 2009 and the interim order has also been granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. This Court deems it proper, after considering all the facts of the case, that the Trial Court should make every effort to decide the suit expeditiously and the repeated applications filed by the parties should be taken care of, keeping in mind the early disposal of the suit. The parties are directed not to file unnecessary applications for delaying the disposal of the suit. The parties are directed not to file unnecessary applications for delaying the disposal of the suit. This Court deems it proper to direct the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously but in no case later than six months after receipt of copy of this order. 12. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff stands allowed in terms, as indicated above.