www.casemine.
com
SMT PALLAVI GAUTAM v. RAMNARAYAN AND ORS
Rajasthan High Court (19 Jul, 2018)
CASE NO.
CW / 3680 / 2018
JUDGES
ALOK SHARMA
Summary
1. Besides the documents in issue, the FIR and challan thereon did not relate to the real dispute before
the trial court relating to legality and validity of the sale deed dated 27-8-2007 in respect of which the
plaintiff was seeking a nullification.
2. The trial court held that the application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was on the facts before it a
misuse of the salutary provisions of law with an intent to delay trial in a suit filed in 2008 and pending for
about ten years, and dismissed it.
3. Besides the defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC whereby the amendment of written
statement on the same fact, had already been dismissed.
4. Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC confers discretion on the trial court to admit documentary evidence at a later
stage when not filed with the written statement.
JUDGMENT
Mr. B.S. Chhaba, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for respondents.
BY THE COURT: The petitioner-defendant (hereinafter the defendant') is aggrieved of the order dated
Printed by licensee : Vartika Prasad Page 1 of 4
22-1-2018 passed by District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur in suit No.17/2008 (120/2013) dismissing his
application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC for taking on record the FIR and challan papers with regard to
an incident of 2-6-2016, where the respondent-plaintiff (hereafter the plaintiff') is alleged to 2have attacked
the defendant's possession of suit premises with stones and demolished the boundary wall.
The facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff') filed a suit for cancellation
of the sale deeds date 27-8-2007 pertaining to a parcel of land situated in village Dayalpura, Tehsil
Sanganer Jaipur. The defendant filed written statement on 11-4-2008, issues were struck and the
plaintiff's evidence recorded. The proceedings in the suit were then fixed for cross examination of the
defendant on his affidavit in evidence filed in court.
The defendant Prashant Gautam at this stage moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC for
taking on record the FIR and challan papers as submitted by the Investigating Officer before the
jurisdictional Magistrate allegedly reflecting that the plaintiff tried to take possession of the suit land. The
trial court has dismissed the application.
Hence this petition.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 22-1-2018 indicates that the defendant's application under Order 8
Rule 1A(3) CPC was dismissed on the ground of delay, the application under Order 8 3Rule 1A(3) CPC
having been filed much subsequent after over a year of the FIR having been filed with regard to the
alleged incident.
Besides the documents in issue, the FIR and challan thereon did not relate to the real dispute before the
trial court relating to legality and validity of the sale deed dated 27-8-2007 in respect of which the plaintiff
was seeking a nullification. The trial court held that the application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was on
the facts before it a misuse of the salutary provisions of law with an intent to delay trial in a suit filed in
2008 and pending for about ten years, and hence dismissed it.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Dayanand Lawaniya vs. Bhagan Lal (2017)1 DNJ
333 wherein coordinate bench of this court allowed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC deep into
the trial for taking on record the documents.
Printed by licensee : Vartika Prasad Page 2 of 4
Mr. S.N. Kumawat, counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned orders and placed reliance on the
judgment in the case of Satish Gaggar Vs. Satya Prakash 2016 WLC (Raj.) UC 124 wherein the
application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was dismissed on the ground that the defendant did not
disclose the reason for not 4producing the documents earlier and on facts indulgence of the court's
discretion was not warranted.
Heard. Considered.
A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the documents sought to be brought on record under Order
8 Rule 1A(3) CPC had no relation to the issues struck for trial in the suit before the court.
Besides the defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC whereby the amendment of written
statement on the same fact, had already been dismissed. Indeed Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC confers
discretion on the trial court to admit documentary evidence at a later stage when not filed with the written
statement. But the said discretion cannot and ought not to be exercised on the mere askance without
reference to the facts relevant for its exercise. On that count, the trial court has found against the
defendant both on account of delay and the irrelevance of the documents for the trial of issues struck in
the suit before the trial court.
The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the defendant turned its own facts and factual circumstance
therein were wholly distinct from those obtaining in the instant case. They are thus not relevant to
impugning the order dated 22-1-2018. The trial court has passed a detailed and well reasoned order on
the facts of the case before it.
5I am of the considered view that the discretion exercised by the trial court suffers neither from any
perversity nor patent illegality nor is it capricious warranting interference by this court under its power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is no force in the petitions. Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 6All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.
Printed by licensee : Vartika Prasad Page 3 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
