Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1249 (RAJ)

Omprakash S/o Kajodmal v. Uganti

2022-04-21

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
ORDER 1. Although, the matter comes up on an application (1/2022) filed by the respondent No.1 seeking vacation of the interim order; but, on the joint request of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition was heard on its merit at this stage. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 07.08.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Dausa in 3. Election Petition No.59/2020 whereby, an application filed by the respondent No.1/election-petitioner for summoning the documents has been allowed as also the order dated even passed by the same Court rejecting an application filed by the petitioner with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 4. The facts in brief are that the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Nangal Rajawatan is assailed by the respondent No.1 by way of an election petition before the learned District Judge, Dausa. During course of trial, the respondent No.1 moved an application for summoning certain documents which has been allowed by the learned District Judge vide its order dated 07.08.2021. On that very day, the petitioner moved an application for an adjournment to argue the application filed by the respondent No.1 which was dismissed by the learned Court vide its order dated even with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Both the orders have been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court towards the order sheet of the learned trial Court dated 27.07.2021, submitted that alongwith an application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, another application filed on that very day, were posted for arguments on 07.08.2021 and not the application filed by her for summoning the documents. He submitted that in these circumstances, he filed an application dated 07.08.2021 seeking time to argue the application for summoning the document which was erroneously rejected by the learned Court with cost of Rs.1,000/-. He submitted that in these circumstances, he filed an application dated 07.08.2021 seeking time to argue the application for summoning the document which was erroneously rejected by the learned Court with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Court erred in allowing the application filed for summoning the documents only on the premise that another application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed whereby, photocopies of the documents were taken on record, as it was for the election-petitioner to prove the documents taken on record under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC by leading cogent evidence and for proving the same, assistance of the Court could not have been taken by summoning the documents. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petiton be allowed and the order impugned dated 07.08.2021 be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that vide its order dated 27.07.2021, the learned Court has posted the matter for 07.08.2021 for arguments on both the applications, one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC and another filed on the same day, i.e., 05.02.2021 for summoning the documents. He submitted that since the order dated 07.08.2021 was passed by the learned Court after hearing arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties on both the applications, it has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for postponing the matter with cost. He submitted that the order dated 07.08.2021 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. It is trite law that summoning of original documents from a person/authority under whose possession the same lie, through Court is one of the mode of discharging burden of proof by a party to litigation. Since, on the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, photocopies of relevant documents were taken on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned District Judge did not err in summoning the original documents on an application filed by the election-petitioner for proving the same. Since, on the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, photocopies of relevant documents were taken on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned District Judge did not err in summoning the original documents on an application filed by the election-petitioner for proving the same. The learned Court has assigned cogent reasons for allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1 in its judicious discretion which do not suffer from any patent jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction. 9. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by the respondent No.1 for summoning the document was not fixed for arguments on 07.08.2021, is concerned, suffice is to say that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC as also the application filed for summoning the documents were submitted by the respondent No.1 on the same day, i.e., 05.02.2021 reply whereof was filed by the petitioner on 09.03.2021 and the learned Court has, vide its order dated 27.07.2021 posted both the applications on arguments on 07.08.2021. As is evident from the order dated 07.08.2021 (Annexure-7) whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for postponing the matter was dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-, it came to be filed after passing of the order dated 07.08.2021 accepting the application preferred by the respondent No.1 for summoning the document. In view thereof, this order also does not warrant any interfere of this Court. 10. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 11. The pending application stands disposed of accordingly.