Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2381 (RAJ)

Navodaya Shiksha Samiti v. Dharmendra Gupta

2022-09-07

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.23/2009 whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants on the basis of their possession over the subject property since the year 1991. During the pendency of the suit, they filed an application under Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 CPC for discovery of title documents of the three plots, the basis of claim of title by the respondents No.1 to 3 over the subject property and a power of attorney. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 27.05.2022, the subject matter of challenge. 3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the defendants have raised their claim qua the subject property on the strength of Pattas issued to them by the New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited and the proceeding on their behest was being pursued by their power of attorney holder, the learned trial Court erred in dismissing their application filed under Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 CPC. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 27.05.2022 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by them be allowed. 4. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the order dated 27.05.2022 reveals that the learned trial Court assigned cogent reasons based on material on record while rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for discovery of the documents. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners qua the power of attorney does not merit acceptance as the same already stands rescinded and now, the case is being contested by the respondents by themselves only. Since, the respondents are claiming their title over the subject property through Pattas issued in their favour by a housing society, the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the application on the premise that it is for them to establish their claim based on Pattas. 5. Since, the respondents are claiming their title over the subject property through Pattas issued in their favour by a housing society, the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the application on the premise that it is for them to establish their claim based on Pattas. 5. This Court is not satisfied that the order dated 27.05.2022 suffers from any such perversity or patent jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.