www.casemine.

com

2015 SCC ONLINE RAJ 7160 .

Narayan v. Ram Sahai &Ors

Rajasthan High Court (1 Dec, 2015)

CASE NO.
S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 10843/2015

ADVOCATES

Mr. K.N Sharma, for the petitioner.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, for the respondents.

JUDGES

Alok Sharma, J.

Summary

1. At the stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC inter_alia seeking to

bring on record certain judgments passed in disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendant by the

revenue courts.

2. The trial court in the exercise of its discretion under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC refused to S.B. CIVIL

WRIT PETITION NO.10843/2015 (Narayan Vs. Ram Sahai & Ors.) (2) entertain the application, grant

leave and dismissed the application.

3. Mr. K.N. Sharma, appearing for the defendant submits that the documents in issue are of

unquestionable authenticity being the judgments of the revenue courts and taking them on record

belatedly could not have caused any prejudice to the plaintiffs.

4. Mr. M.K. Verma, appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the power of the trial court under Order 8

Rule 1A(3) CPC is discretionary in nature.

Printed by licensee : Vartika Prasad Page 1 of 3

JUDGMENT

Alok Sharma, J.: A challenge has been made to the order dated 27.07.2015, passed by the Additional

District judge, Lalsot, District Dausa dismissing the petitioner-defendant's (hereinafter the defendant)

application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC.

2. Admittedly the suit for declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter

the plaintiffs) was filed on 18.02.2007 Written statement was filed on 21.12.2008 Issues were framed on

09.02.2015 and on 28.05.2015, the plaintiffs' evidence was closed. At this stage, the defendant filed an

application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC inter alia seeking to bring on record certain judgments passed

in disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendant by the revenue courts. The trial court on

consideration of the matter found that the documents referred to in the application under Order 8 Rule

1A(3) CPC were in possession of the defendant at the time of filing of the written statement and no

reasons have been proffered as to why the said documents were not filed with the written statement, but

instead sought to be filed belatedly subsequent to the closure of the plaintiffs' evidence. In this view of the

matter, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC refused to entertain

the application, grant leave and dismissed the application.

3. Mr. K.N Sharma, appearing for the defendant submits that the documents in issue are of

unquestionable authenticity being the judgments of the revenue courts and taking them on record

belatedly could not have caused any prejudice to the plaintiffs. Instead it was in the interest of justice for

the trial court to exercise its discretion as the said documents were relevant to the suit inasmuch as they

were indicative of the defendant being adopted by one Shivnath @ Shyonath.

4. Mr. M.K Verma, appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the power of the trial court under Order 8

Rule 1A(3) CPC is discretionary in nature. He submits that the discretion of the court has to be exercised

with reference to the facts of a given case. It was submitted that in the instant case, under Order 8 Rule 1

CPC it was incumbent as a general rule upon the defendant to file all documents relied upon in defence

along with the written statement. Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC is an exception to general rule. A defendant can

file additional documents subsequent to filing of the written statement only with the leave of the court

which entail the exercise of discretion of the court with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given

case. Counsel submitted that the documents in issue were admittedly in possession of the defendant prior

to the filing of the written statement yet they were not so filed. No reasons were given out by the

Printed by licensee : Vartika Prasad Page 2 of 3

defendant seeking to invoke the discretion of the court as to deviate from the general rule under the

prescribed procedure. It was submitted that the suit has been pending since last about eight years and if

the procedure prescribed is not adhered to except in cases of good cause found by the trial court, the

notorious and inordinate delays in the disposal of the suit would be further exacerbated. This should not

be countenanced by this Court.

5. Heard. Considered and perused the impugned order.

6. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be primarily exercised in

case of jurisdictional error of the court below and also where the perversity or misdirection in law in the

impugned order is so stark as to lead to manifest injustice to the aggrieved party. In my considered

opinion, in the facts as obtain in the present case, none of the aforesaid situations for exercising the

superintending jurisdiction of this Court are made out. The impugned order passed by the trial court is a

well considered order with reference to the facts on record. I am of the view that if the power under Order

8 Rule 1A(3) CPC were to be mechanically exercised, the whole purpose and object of Order 8 Rule 1

CPC would be defeated and rendered otiose. The power under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC is to be exercised

only for good and sufficient cause such as when the documents sought to be relied upon by a defendant

in a suit were not in possession at the time of filing of written statement, had subsequently come to his

possession and were also relevant for the adjudication of the dispute before the trial court.

7. For the aforesaid reason, I find no force in the petition.

8. Dismissed.

9. Stay application also dismissed.