Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 625 (RAJ)

Ghanshyam Singh v. Nagar Palika Jaitaran

2024-04-18

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 read with section 151 CPC has been rejected. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the case are that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 r/w section 151 CPC to summon certain records from the official respondents, however, the said application has been rejected and the petitioners have been granted liberty to obtain those documents independently by way of approaching the official respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the RTI applications filed by the petitioners, those documents were received by them and, therefore, the same are now being placed on record by way of filing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has committed an error while rejecting the application of the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 11.05.2023 may be quashed and set aside. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the order impugned dated 11.05.2023. 6. The undisputed facts in the care are that the petitioners have filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners are in possession of certain piece of land and during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the petitioners filed an application before the official respondents for grant of Patta. On the application so preferred by the petitioners for grant of Patta, certain correspondence was made by the official respondents which is sought to be brought on record by way of filing the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. 7. The chronology of the facts reflect that the petitioners' application for calling the records from the official respondents was rejected in the year 2022 and thereafter, the petitioners have approached the respondents and got the desired documents, however, the same is sought to be filed at the stage when the final arguments are in progress before the learned trial court. 8. 8. This Court is firmly of the view that if there is any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial court for not calling the requisite documents from the official respondents, the petitioners should have assailed the validity of that order and if the petitioners have accepted the same and approached the respondents for getting the records, then after getting those documents from the official respondents, the same should have been filed before the learned trial court at the earliest and they should not have waited for the suit to proceed for final arguments. Since the learned trial court has proceeded with the matter and the final arguments are in progress in the suit proceedings, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 r/w section 151 CPC. 9. In the humble opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned trial court on 11.05.2023 does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.