Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 408 (RAJ)

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation v. Govind Puri

2019-02-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT I. A. No.01/2019 : 1. The petitioner has moved the present application seeking deletion of respondent No.2, from the array of respondents. 2. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. The name of respondent No.2 is deleted from the array of respondents. Amended cause title already filed is taken on record. SB Civil Writ Petition No.15636/2018 : 3. The writ petition at hand is directed against the order dated 03.08.2018, passed by Additional Civil Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), by which the petitioner's application dated 26.04.2018 under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 4. Shorn off unnecessary details, the concise facts of the case at hand are that the plaintiff-respondents No.1, 2 & 3 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur in the year 2001; the petitioner-Corporation had filed its written statement dated 5.08.2002; on the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues had been framed by the trial Court; after the plaintiffs' evidence was over, the defendants sought various adjournments for leading evidence and ultimately their evidence was closed. 5. The petitioner-Corporation thereafter filed a writ petition, which was registered as SB CWP No.2564/2018, wherein, vide order dated 20.02.2018, this Court granted an additional opportunity to the petitioner-Corporation to lead its evidence, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 11,000/- on or before 15.03.2018. In furtherance of the aforesaid order dated 20.02.2018 passed by this Court, competent Officer of the Municipal Corporation had filed his affidavit and led/completed his evidence. 6. After the evidence was complete, the petitioner-Corporation moved the subject application on 26.04.2018 and prayed that certain documents, which were not placed on record, may now be taken on record. 7. Vide order impugned, the trial Court rejected the petitioner's aforesaid application, interalia observing that the petitioner- Corporation has been negligent and even after filing amended written statement on 10.12.2007 and filing of the list of documents, no reference of these documents, which are being sought to be placed on record, was ever made. Learned trial Court has also observed that the documents, which are sought to be placed on record, have not even been mentioned in the affidavit in evidence filed by the petitioner-Corporation. 8. Assailing the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the trial Court, Mr. Learned trial Court has also observed that the documents, which are sought to be placed on record, have not even been mentioned in the affidavit in evidence filed by the petitioner-Corporation. 8. Assailing the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the trial Court, Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation argued that the Court below has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application dated 26.04.2018, filed under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He contended that the documents in question, which are being sought to be placed on record, are very vital documents, which due to inadvertence could not be placed on the record of the trial Court. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have applied objective and justice oriented approach and should not have rejected the petitioner's application. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the order dated 03.08.2018, passed by the Court below contended that after granting an opportunity to lead the evidence by this Court on 20.02.2018, the Officer of the petitioner-Corporation had submitted his affidavit in evidence on 10.04.2018 and after cross-examination, the petitioner- Corporation's evidence is complete and the matter is pending at the stage of final arguments. He painfully submitted that the suit is pending since 2001 and as a result of lackadaisical approach of the petitioner, the same is languishing in the trial Court. 10. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents contended that if the subject application of the petitioner-Corporation is allowed, it would lead to travesty of justice and complexity, as the petitioner's evidence has since been over. 11. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting petitioner's subject application dated 26.04.2018. The impugned order dated 03.08.2018 is perfectly in sync with the statutory provisions. 12. Concededly the evidence of the petitioner-Corporation is already over and the matter is at the stage of final arguments. It is also undisputed that there is no reference of these documents in the written statement; list of documents; and the affidavits dated 10.04.2018 filed by the petitioner-Corporation. As such, the request as made by the petitioner, vide its application dated 26.04.2018, cannot be acceded to. It is also undisputed that there is no reference of these documents in the written statement; list of documents; and the affidavits dated 10.04.2018 filed by the petitioner-Corporation. As such, the request as made by the petitioner, vide its application dated 26.04.2018, cannot be acceded to. If the petitioner's application were to be allowed, then the matter has to go back to the stage of leading of defendants' evidence, as not only the deposition qua these documents has to be made, but they have to be proved. If the Corporation has omitted to produce these documents on record, it has only its officers to thank or blame. No indulgence can be granted to it, as the same would be in violation of provisions of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and the spirit of law. 13. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned dated 03.08.2018, the writ petition is dismissed.