Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 611 (RAJ)

POONAM YADAV v. KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV

2020-08-26

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2020
ORDER Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.02.2020 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit in the year 2007 for possession and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant stating therein that she was owner of the plot No.86 which the defendant was occupying as trespasser after termination of his license by her vide notice dated 12.10.2006. At the stage, when the case was fixed for plaintiff's rebuttal evidence, she filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC seeking to take on record the documents pertaining to allotment of Flat No.116, Sahyog Apartments, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur to the defendant by the Government, obtained by her under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act of 2005"). The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order impugned dated 11.02.2020. 3. Assailing the order dated 11.02.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the documents in question were public documents, genuineness of which was beyond doubt and were relevant for decision of the controversy involved in the matter. Hence, learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the plaint reveals that it has specifically mentioned therein that after death of father-in-law of the plaintiff on 06.05.2005, the defendant has started residing along with his family in Sanyogita Apartment, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur and has let out the suit premises to Shri Om Prakash Jain. Thus, the plaintiff was aware when she filed the suit that the defendant has started residing in Sanyogita Apartment, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur after the death of her father-in-law on 06.05.2005. There is no reason forthcoming from the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC as to why the documents pertaining to residence of the defendant in Sanyogita Apartment, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur were not filed along with the suit or immediately thereafter at earliest. 6. There is no reason forthcoming from the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC as to why the documents pertaining to residence of the defendant in Sanyogita Apartment, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur were not filed along with the suit or immediately thereafter at earliest. 6. The reason mentioned in the application that earlier the documents were not available with her and have been obtained recently only under the Act of 2005 only, cannot be accepted as reasonable explanation for condonation of delay inasmuch as when the petitioner was aware about the defendant residing in Sanyogita Apartment, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur when she filed the suit, there was no reason for her for not obtaining the documents under the Act of 2005 at the relevant time or immediately thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to reasons for delay in moving the application under the Act of 2005 to get the documents. When confronted with the averment in the application that the petitioner came to know of the address of the apartment from the complaint filed against her and her brother by the Police Station, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur under Sections 107 & 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel failed to apprise this Court as to when this complaint was filed nor, its copy has been placed on record in spite of having been so stated therein. It is trite that the plaintiff was required to place on record copies of all the documents in her possession or power in support of her claim when the plaint was presented. Under sub-Rule (3) of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the Court can grant leave to file documents later on only if after due diligence, the plaintiff was not able to produce the documents along with plaint. 7. No reason is forthcoming, as already observed, either from the application or from the submissions made by the learned counsel for inordinate delay in moving the application. It appears that this application has been filed with extraneous consideration only to delay the proceeding pending before the learned trial Court for last about 13 years and the learned trial Court has committed no error in rejected the same. It appears that this application has been filed with extraneous consideration only to delay the proceeding pending before the learned trial Court for last about 13 years and the learned trial Court has committed no error in rejected the same. In considered opinion of this Court, order dated 11.02.2020 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.