SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sajjan Raj vs Sushil Agarwal & Ors on 27 September, 2013

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Sajjan Raj vs Sushil Agarwal & Ors on 27 September, 2013

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRUE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

ORDER

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. Date of Order : 27.09.2013 PRESENT

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Mr T.S.Champawat, for petitioner

BY THE COURT:

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 02.08.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (JD) No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter), whereby several applications preferred by the petitioner under section 151, Order 6 Rule 5 read with section 151, section 30 CPC read with Order 16 Rule 14 and 15 read with section 151 CPC, Order 26, Rule 10A read with section 151, Order 13 Rule 10 CPC read with section 151 CPC have been rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 2

respondent-Sushil Agarwal filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner and other defendants, which is pending before the trial court since 1991. When the plaintiff failed to appear before the learned trial court on several occasions for cross-examination by the opposite party on the affidavit filed by him in support of the suit, the learned trial court vide order dated 19.05.2007 has closed the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff while observing that if on the next date, the plaintiff produces documents regarding his treatment in connection with the accident, due to which he failed to appear before the Court, he is entitled to give his evidence. The matter was fixed for 21.07.2007 for recording the evidence of the defendants. On 21.07.2007, the respondent-plaintiff moved an application under section 151 CPC along with an affidavit and produced the documentary evidence regarding his treatment in connection with the alleged accident. The learned trial court, after taking into consideration the said application and the S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 3

objections filed by the defendants, has passed the order dated 04.12.2007 and allowed the respondent-plaintiff to produce his remaining evidence on the next date of hearing and the matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 11.01.2008.

The petitioner-Sajjan Raj – defendant No.3, in the suit, filed a first information report regarding forged and fabricated medical certificates filed by Sushil Agarwal before the learned trial court for the purpose of producing his evidence and for which, the learned trial court has passed the order dated 04.12.2007, before Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur. In that criminal case, the police, after investigation, has found that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner are forged and fabricated and hence, filed charge-sheet against respondent-Sushil Agarwal for the offences punishable under sections 465 and 471 IPC before the competent criminal court.

The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application before the learned trial court on S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 4

13.03.2012 under section 151 CPC while claiming that as the learned trial court has allowed the respondent-plaintiff to produce his evidence on the basis of the medical certificates and in police investigation, the said medical certificates are found to be false and fabricated, the order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the trial court allowing the respondent-plaintiff to produce his evidence should be recalled.

The learned trial court, after hearing counsel for the parties concerned, has dismissed the said application vide order dated 02.08.2013 along with several other applications preferred by the petitioner.

Being aggrieved with the dismissal of the application preferred by the petitioner under section 151 CPC for recalling of the order dated 04.12.2007, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial court has failed to consider the controversy involved in the present S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 5

case in its true perspective and has illegally rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 04.12.2007. It is also contended by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the medical certificates in respect of the treatment of the petitioner at Ahmedabad between 17.05.2007 and 21.05.2007 were found to be false and fabricated as per the police investigation and the learned trial court, on the basis of the said documents, has allowed the respondent-plaintiff to produce his evidence, in such circumstances, the learned trial court should have allowed the application preferred by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 04.12.2007. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any party, who procures favourable order from the court by practicing fraud upon the court, should be dealt with high hands and no leniency should be allowed to such person and in the case in hand, it is more than clear that the petitioner has got favourable order from the court on the basis of S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 6

false and fabricated documents and, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court of rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under section 151 CPC for recalling the earlier order of the trial court dated 02.08.2013 should be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 04.12.2007 should be recalled. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in A shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriay Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, AIR 2012 SCC 2010; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors, AIR 2000 SC 1165; and Ramji Gupta & Anr. vs. Gopi Krishan Agrawal (D) & Ors., 2013(2) Civil Court Cases 668 (S.C.).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

The learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for recalling its order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the trial court mainly S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 7

on the ground that in connection with the production of the false and fabricated documents by the respondent, a criminal case is already pending before the competent criminal court and, therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to conduct a parallel inquiry in respect of the very said documents by the civil court. The learned trial court has also observed that the matter is of the year 1991 and is one of the oldest pending cases of the court. It is also observed by the learned trial court that by allowing the respondent-plaintiff to produce his evidence, the rights of the defendant will not be affected as they have been provided full opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. It is true that the medical certificates produced by the defendants before the learned trial court on the basis of which the learned trial court has allowed the respondent to produce his remaining evidence vide order dated 04.12.2007, are found to be false and fabricated in the police investigation and a criminal case for the offence punishable under sections 465 and 471 IPC is S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 8

pending before the competent criminal court. However, it is also not in dispute that no final order has been passed by the competent criminal court regarding the guilt of the respondent. The learned trial court has rightly observed that when the proceedings before the competent criminal court in respect of false and fabricated medical certificates is pending trial, it is not in the interest of justice to conduct a parallel enquiry. The learned trial court has also taken into consideration that the matter is regarding specific performance of contract, which is to be decided on the basis of the evidence of the parties and is pending since 1991 and, therefore, it is not necessary to recall the order dated 04.12.2007, whereby the respondent-plaintiff was allowed to produce his remaining evidence. After going through the entire documents placed on record and the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10282/2013 Sajjan Raj Vs. Sushil Agarwal & Ors. 9

04.12.2007, particularly in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is, hereby dismissed. [VIJAY BISHNOI],J.

m.asif/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation