1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/2005 Murti Shri Thakurji Laxminathji Virajman & Others Versus Shri Asgar Ali & Others 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3096/2004 Murti Shri Thakurji Laxminath jee & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3097/2004 Murti Shri Thakurji Laxminath jee & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others Date of Order :: 13th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Ms. Gayatri Rathore ) for the petitioners Mr. Prashant Choudhary) Ms. Anuradha for the respondents BY THE COURT: All the above three writ petitions in between same parties arise out of one suit filed on behalf of plaintiff petitioners, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ petitions are admitted. Ms. Anuradha Sharma appears for the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 4. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 18th June, 1994 registered on 21st July, 1994 and for permanent injunction and recovery of damages. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff petitioners filed three applications. The first application dated 21st February, 2004 under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 12th April, 2005 which is subject matter of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/2005. The another application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC dated 29th August, 2000 and third application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC dated 9th November, 2000, both, were dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 9th February, 2001. The order rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC is a subject mater of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3096/2004, whereas the order rejecting the application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is a subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3097/2004. All the three orders referred above have been challenged by plaintiff-petitioners in these writ petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the matter is still pending for plaintiff's evidence. The documents 3 sought to be produced alongwith the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and Order 13 Rule 2 CPC are relevant and material and will be helpful in deciding the case effectively, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting both the applications. It is further contended that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application under order 14 Rule 5 CPC, whereas the proposed issue was necessary to be framed in the present case on the basis of pleading of the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents in all the three cases defended the impugned orders and contended that the petitioners are habitual in filing the applications one after another and only for the purpose of delaying the matter the applications are being filed. It is further contended that the documents sought to be produced on record are not relevant at all and so far as the proposed issue sought to be framed is concerned, the same is already covered under issue no. 7, therefore, the trial court was right in rejecting the applications. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. So far as 4 documents sought to be produced by plaintiff are concerned, I find that case is still pending for plaintiff's evidence, therefore, it will be just and proper in the interest of justice to take all the documents on record, but so far as the application under order 14 Rule 5 CPC is concerned, I find that the trial court has rightly observed that proposed issue is already covered under issue no. 7, therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition relating to Order 14 Rule 5 is concerned. Consequently the writ petitions no. 3598/2005 and 3097/2004 are allowed, but writ petition no. 3096/2004 relating to application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC is dismissed. The documents annexed with the application under Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 13 Rule 2 CPC are ordered to be taken on record on payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- in each case, which will be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the documents will not be taken on record. 8. So far as these writ petitions are concerned, the cost is made easy. 9. Since three writ petitions have been decided by this common order, therefore, a copy 5 of this order may be placed in connected two files. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 3176/2005 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/2005 Murti Shri Thakurji Laxminathji Virajman & Others Versus Shri Asgar Ali & Others 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2694/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3096/2004 Murti Shri Thakurji Laxminath jee & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others 3. S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2695/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3097/2004 Murti Shri Thakurji Laxminath jee & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others Date of Order :: 13th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Ms. Gayatri Rathore ) for the petitioners Mr. Prashant Choudhary) Ms. Anuradha for the respondents Consequent upon the disposal of writ petitions, the stay applications, filed therewith do not survive and the same also stand disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK