[2025:RJ-JP:2231] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2084/2004 Ramnarain Sons Pvt Ltd registered office State Bank of Building Annexe, Fort, Mumbai through Power of Attorney Ramavtar D. Chotia of Ramnarain Sons Pvt. Ltd. Main Bazar Ramgarh Shekhawati District Sikar ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Sikar 2. Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad 3. Smt. Sarita Devi 4. Smt. Kuldeep Devi 5. Smt. Urmila Devi 6. Rajesh 7. Prem 8. Sushil Kumar All sons and daughters of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad, residents of Ramgargh Shekhawati, District Sikar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M M Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Yashwardhan Tolani For Respondent(s) : Mr. C L Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 16/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 20.03.2004 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar in civil suit No. 39/2004, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC has been dismissed. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant Nos. 2 to 8 (for short ‘the [2025:RJ-JP:2231] (2 of 3) [CW-2084/2004] defendants’) for removing illegal encroachment and possession in which plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC for taking certain documents on record but the trial Court vide order dated 20.03.2004 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff wanted to submit photostat copy of registered deed on record, which was registered in the year 1958. These documents were not in possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. So, on cost these documents could have been taken on record but the trial court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the petition filed by the plaintiff be allowed and the documents filed by the plaintiff be taken on record. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that these documents were of the year 1958 but these documents were sought to be taken on record in the year 2003 and no delay was explained by the plaintiff for filing these documents after inordinate delay. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the present petition filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that plaintiff filed these documents after an inordinate delay as the present suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1998 whereas the documents belong to 1958. No plausible cause was shown by the plaintiff for submitting copy of the documents after such a long delay. So, in my considered [2025:RJ-JP:2231] (3 of 3) [CW-2084/2004] opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiff being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/40