Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1292 (RAJ)

Ramesh v. Phatteram

2023-07-04

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2023
ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. The petitioner/ plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the court of learned Addl. civil Judge No.04, Bharatpur (for short 'the trial court') in suit No. 64/2016, dismissing his application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 CPC. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/ defendants stating that the plot in question situated at village Dhanota, Tehsil & District Bharatpur is in his ownership and possession. He inherited the said property from his father and the defendants have no concern with the said plot. He further stated in the plaint that the defendants have threatened him to dispossess from the suit property and that cause of action entailed him in filing of the suit. 3. On 22.05.2018 petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 CPC for taking certain documents on record including the site commissioner's Report dated 29.07.2012 and the statements of cross-examination of the witnesses namely; Niranjan Singh, Mahendra Singh, Hotilal and Niranjan s/o Lohre, purportedly to prove his case laid in the suit. 4. Reply to the application of the petitioner/ plaintiff was filed by the respondents/ defendants stating that the petitioner /plaintiff has not stated a word in the application that how the documents, which he sought to be taken on record, are relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties as has been raised in the suit and prayed to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 5. The trial court considering the submissions of both the counsels appearing for the parties, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14 (3)read with section 151 CPC observing that in the application the petitioner/plaintiff has not uttered a word that how these documents which are sought to be taken on record, are relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute agitated in the suit. 6. counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff submits that the documents which are sought to be taken on record are relevant for proving his case and, therefore, the application ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice. He further submits that the said documents are the part of other suit proceedings between the same parties. 7. 6. counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff submits that the documents which are sought to be taken on record are relevant for proving his case and, therefore, the application ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice. He further submits that the said documents are the part of other suit proceedings between the same parties. 7. counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submits that the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner /plaintiff because the petitioner /plaintiff has not uttered a word in his application that how these documents which are sought to be taken on record are relevant for proper adjudication of the issue. 8. Heard, considered. 9. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC provides for taking certain documents on record with the leave of the court which are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute raised in the suit proceedings. The petitioner/ plaintiff did not set out any good and reasonable ground before the trial court to exercise its discretion in allowing the application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 CPC. The exception under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC can be invoked only with the leave of the trial court which is discretionary. The facts on which the leave of the court is sought under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC are therefore relevant where the trial court on the assertion of the plaintiff finds that the documents in issue are relevant to the issue for adjudication before the court, in case the applicant fails to submit the relevancy of the documents, the trial court can refuse to exercise its discretion and deny leave to take such documents on record. 10. in the present case, the petitioner/ plaintiff neither in his application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 CPC before the trial court explained that how such documents are relevant for adjudication of the issue nor the petitioner/ plaintiff has placed those documents or record before this court so that the same could be examined as in what manner they are relevant for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 11. 11. in the over-all facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court to warrant any interference of this court under writ jurisdiction. 12. The writ petition is having no force and accordingly stands dismissed. 13. The stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed.