Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jasvinder Singh vs Ravinder Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:28075) on 1 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:28075]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15887/2024
Jasvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 18 Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Sri-Ganganagar Through His Power Of Attorney Holder Gurdev
Singh S/o Sh. Indra Singh, Aged About 79 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 13 Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri-
Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Krishan Singh, Aged About
57 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 18, House No. 125 P.w.d.
Rest House Ke Samne Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar
At Present Dhani Suratgarh, District Sri-Ganganagar.
2. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, Resident Of Gram
Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar.
3. Jaspreet Singh S/o Late Sh. Santa Singh S/o Kartar
Singh, Resident Of Gram Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala
Sahib, District Amritsar.
4. Smt. Daljeet Kaur Bewa Surjeet Singh S/o Kartar Singh,
Resident Of Gram Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib,
District Amritsar.
5. Chanpreet Singh S/o Late Surjeet Singh S/o Kartar Singh,
Resident Of Gram Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib,
District Amritsar.
6. Sarvjeet Singh S/o Late Surjeet Singh Kartar Singh,
Resident Of Gram Bhoye, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib,
District Amritsar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chirag Kalani.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
01/07/2025
1. Petitioner (defendant) herein, inter-alia, seeks quashing of
the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 (Annex.-4) passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh in Case No.13/2016,
vide which the learned Trial Court rejected his application under
Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for taking additional document on record.
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:04:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28075] (2 of 4) [CW-15887/2024]
2. For ease of reference, English translation of the relevant part
of the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 (as provided) is given as
follows:
“Heard. The arguments advanced have been considered. The
case file has been perused.
From the perusal of the case file, it clearly emerges that the
applicant/defendant seeks to bring on record two documents – a will
and a declaration – both of which pertain to a time prior to the
institution of the suit. The applicant/defendant has not taken the plea
that the said documents were not in his possession. The only
argument is that the said two documents were not found as they were
kept along with other documents.
However, when DW-1 Jasvindra appeared as a witness, he
admitted during cross-examination that the original will was with
him and is still in his possession. If the said will was not traceable
because it was kept along with other documents, then this witness
would not have stated in his cross-examination that he can produce
it.
The case is at the stage of defendant’s evidence. DW-1
Jasvindra has appeared four times and has been extensively cross-
examined.
It is thus clear that the two documents which the
applicant/defendant wants to bring on record were in his power and
possession even prior to the institution of the suit. These documents
were not submitted while filing the written statement, and no mention
of these documents is made in the list of documents annexed with the
written statement. Furthermore, from the testimony of defendant
Jasvindra himself, it is evident that there was no such situation where
the said documents could not be found because they were kept with
other documents.
The plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 11
Rule 14 CPC dated 16.03.2021 to summon the said will.
Under these circumstances, it is clear that the
applicant/defendant has deliberately avoided bringing the documents
(will and declaration) on record. The conduct of the
applicant/defendant during trial does not in any manner support the
plea for taking the documents on record. A party may be granted
indulgence on the basis of a bona fide mistake, but no relief can be
granted for a deliberate act.
As far as the judicial precedents cited by the
applicant/defendant are concerned :
2. 2018 AIR CC 1359 Poonamchand Jeengar Vs. Satyanarayan
Manohar Lal Jeengar
3. (2020) 3 DNJ 641 Jagdish Prasad And Others Vs. Mohanlal
Agarwal/Mohan And Others
4. 1995 AIR (SC) 1984 Laltha J. Rai Vs. Aithappa Rai
have been respectfully considered. The precedent 1995 AIR
(SC) 1984 pertains to Order 16 CPC and is therefore not applicable.
From the other precedents, though guidance has been sought and
this Court agrees with the view expressed therein, they do not help
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:04:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28075] (3 of 4) [CW-15887/2024]
the applicant/defendant in the present circumstances in bringing the
documents on record.
Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant/defendant
under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is rejected and dismissed. Order
pronounced.”
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file along with the documents annexed
therewith.
4. It transpires that at the first instance, it was the non-
applicant No.1 – plaintiff himself, who insisted on production of
the original Will dated 16.12.1992, which is disputed in the civil
suit. However, the said application dated 04.05.2024 was
dismissed vide an order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned
trial court. No doubt, no further recourse was taken to assail the
said order passed by the learned trial court, but fact is that
plaintiff wanted defendant to produce the said document. Now, the
defendant (beneficiary of the Will) himself has sought to produce
the same by filing an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for the
benefit of the Court to unravel the truth. It appears that what
weighed in the mind of the learned trial court was the dismissal of
earlier application of the plaintiff seeking production of the same.
Perhaps bearing in mind that the court having earlier opined that
the document was not necessary to be produced, therefore, to
now allow the production of the same very document by the
defendant would be highly inappropriate.
5. Furthermore, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the
plaintiff-respondent that the evidence has since already been
concluded. At this stage, to allow the production of the document,
would result in unnecessary delay of the trial. No doubt, argument
of the learned counsel qua the delay is valid as at this stage
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:04:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28075] (4 of 4) [CW-15887/2024]
production of document, would necessarily cause some delay, but
the same can be compensated by imposing cost, particularly in
view of the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff
as at one stage, he himself wanted production of the same,
though, of course, his application was declined.
6. In totality of the circumstances, the petition is allowed
subject to payment of cost of Rs.7,500/-. The impugned order
dated 08.08.2024 is set-aside.
7. In the parting, I may hasten to add that in case, the plaintiff
wishes to cross-examine the defendant qua the document in
question, he shall be given one opportunity. At the same time, in
case the said document is not disputed by the plaintiff, needless to
say, then there is no requirement of cross-examination as on the
basis of certified copy of the same very document, the needful has
already been carried out.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
8-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:04:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)