High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SMT SHAKUNTALA DEVI v ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAST - CW Case No. 6398 of 2005  RD-RJ 2696 (15 May 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6398/05
Smt. Shakuntala Devi
A.D.J. (Fast Track No.5), Jaipur City,
Jaipur & Ors. 15.5.2007
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Shri Lokesh Sharma with
Ms. Shefali Sharma )
Ms. Usha Kiran ) for petitioner.
Shri Gaurav Gupta )
Shri Vinod Singhal) for respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.8.2005 whereby her application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the application was filed belatedly and that the documents were already in existence much prior to the filing of the application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is an old widow and there being no other member in the family to help and assist her in the conduct of the proceedings of the
Court, she could not timely come to know about the documents and place them before the Court. She applied for the certified copy and produced the same before the
Court along with the aforesaid application. It is submitted that the documents are all genuine and certified copies, mostly of the court proceedings and they will go to the root of the matter. Controversy in the present case is about the adoption deed which according to the plaintiff petitioner is forged one and therefore the suit seeking cancellation of the adoption deed dated 25.10.1999.
On the other hand, Shri Gaurav
Gupta and Shri Vinod Singhal opposed the writ petition and argued that the documents as would be evident from their dates, were already in existence much prior to the filing of the application and therefore if the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence by not placing them in time, taking the document on record at this stage, would be giving premium for her negligence. The application has been filed at the stage when the matter was ripe for final hearing and therefore was intended to delay the proceedings.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that this writ petition was filed way back on 8.8.05. This Court while issuing notice on 16.8.05 noted the undertaking given by the parties that they shall in the mean time take adjournment before the trial court.
Learned counsel for the parties have informed that the matter is getting adjourned on their request since then in view of the aforesaid undertaking and so far has not proceeded further.
Considering the fact that a period of one year and nine months have gone by since then, the documents which are sought to be placed on record are not such which can be described as ingenuine and most of them are certified copies of the Court proceedings and keeping in view the nature of the suit, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners to bring those documents on record subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall examine herself on one single date i.e. on 21.5.2007, subject to payment of
Rs.500/- to each of the defendants for getting those documents exhibited and the defendants respondents would also be at liberty to produce any other documents in rebuttal which they want to rely on the condition that they shall also do it on one singe day by summoning one or more of the defendants for getting the same exhibited in evidence on any date that may be fixed by the trial court commenced after 21.5.07. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 21.5.2007.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.