Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1743 (RAJ)

Mohammed Saleem v. Pramod Deepak Sharma

2022-05-24

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant challenging the order dated 31.10.2018, whereby, the Court below has allowed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC filed by the respondent-plaintiff. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that after filing of the suit, the respondent-plaintiff had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC in the year 2013 and same application was allowed on 26.09.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that respondent-plaintiff again filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and same was allowed on 21.04.2016. 4. Learned counsel submitted that in series of filing of successive applications, the respondent-plaintiff filed yet another application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC and same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 31.10.2018. 5. Learned counsel submitted that bare perusal of the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff nowhere discloses as which was the document which he wanted to file before the Court and what was the relevance of such documents. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below while allowing the application has not kept in mind the very purpose of filing of documents, at subsequent stage. 7. Learned counsel submitted that only by giving a reference in the order that few documents said not to be under possession of the respondent, as he obtained such documents under the RTI Act, the application could not have been allowed. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the documents which are now being produced by the respondent were already in his possession and no justification was furnished, as how, the documents were required to be taken on record or the relevancy of such documents not being discussed by the Court below and as such, the order is bad in the eye of law. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that though respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit but he himself is delaying the entire proceedings and as such, the present petitioner has been dragged in frivolous litigation. 10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr.R.B. Mathur submitted that the petitioner-defendant had filed an affidavit and in order to controvert the stand taken by the petitioner in his affidavit, necessity has arisen to file such documents by the respondent. 11. 10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr.R.B. Mathur submitted that the petitioner-defendant had filed an affidavit and in order to controvert the stand taken by the petitioner in his affidavit, necessity has arisen to file such documents by the respondent. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court below while passing the order has not curtailed the right of the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal and even at the time of admission of document, opportunity is available to the petitioner to raise any objection. 12. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the application filed by the respondent had clearly mentioned that the petitioner had obtained copies of certain documents under the RTI Act from the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur and since the land in question was allotted to the petitioner in auction and as such, in order to prove his title, he had filed such application. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff in no way intends to delay the proceedings in the suit, as he cannot get the benefit out of it. 14. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that adequate cost of Rs.2,000/- has been allowed to be paid to the petitioner. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court on perusal of the order finds that the documents which were filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC, have been allowed to be taken on record and further right of rebuttal and to question relevancy or irrelevancy of document has been given to the petitioner. 16. This Court further finds that the respondent had specifically mentioned in his application filed before the Court that the documents were obtained by him under the RTI Act and the documents allegedly have some relation with the property in question and as such, the Court below has only taken the documents on record. 17. This Court further finds that the Court below has given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objection about such documents which have been taken on record and the petitioner can always point out before the Court below as whether these documents are relevant or irrelevant or whether they are liable to be admitted or not. 18. 17. This Court further finds that the Court below has given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to raise his objection about such documents which have been taken on record and the petitioner can always point out before the Court below as whether these documents are relevant or irrelevant or whether they are liable to be admitted or not. 18. This Court finds that a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost which has been imposed is not adequate and as such, the respondent-plaintiff is required to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner-defendant on the next date of hearing before the Court below. 19. This Court accordingly without interfering in the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 modifies the order and further directs the respondent-plaintiff to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner-defendant. 20. This Court further finds that the right which has been given to the petitioner in the order dated 31.10.2018, will be allowed to be availed by him at appropriate stage. 21. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.