[2025:RJ-JP:46880] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16637/2025 Satish Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, aged about 52 Years, R/o Village Dhigaria, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, Raj. ---Petitioner Versus 1. Sonidevi, W/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal, (Deceased) 1/1 Kalavati, D/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, aged about 60 Years, W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma, R/o Dhigaria, at present R/o Jodhawas Road, Thanagazi 1/2 Santosh, D/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, aged about 58 Years, W/o Shri Rambabu Sharma, R/o Dhigaria Tehsil Thanagazi, at present R/o Khatiyon Ka Mohalla, Nagar Tehsil Nagar, District Deeg 1/3 Manju Sharma, D/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, aged about 54 Years, W/o Shri Hardwari Lal Sharma, R/o Digaria, Tehsil Thanagazi, at present R/o Prempura, Tehsil Narayanpur, District Kotputli, Behror 2. Kailash Chand, S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal, aged about 55 Years, R/o Village Dhigaria, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, Raj. 3. The State of Rajasthan, through the Sub Registrar, Tehsil, Thanagazi District, Alwar 4. The State of Rajasthan, through Tehsildar, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, Raj 5. Bimla Devi Alias Meera Devi, W/o Kailash Chand, aged about 45 Years, R/o Digaria Police Station, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manu Bhargava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 20/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thanagazi, in Civil Suit No.34/42/2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given sufficient explanation for the delay in production of the [2025:RJ-JP:46880] (2 of 4) [CW-16637/2025] aforesaid documents, but the same was not taken on record. He further submits that though the defendant was permitted to file documents vide order dated 09.09.2025 without any sufficient explanation for the delay, yet the petitioner's application for taking the aforesaid documents was declined on the ground of the delay. He also submits that the aforesaid documents are certified copies of the revenue record and have a material bearing on the matter to be adjudicated; he therefore prays that the impugned order may kindly be set aside, and the application dated 24.09.2025 for taking documents on record may kindly be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents seriously opposes the aforesaid submissions and submits that the suit in question was filed in 2011, and the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed at a belated stage in 2025. He further submits that the documents appended to the said application are not relevant to the adjudication of the lis and no sufficient explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for the delay in filing the said application and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the record of the case. 5. From the record it is evident that though the suit for partition was filed in the year 2011, the issues were framed in the year 2013, and in the said suit vide order dated 09.09.2025, the defendant's application under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) read with Section 151 CPC was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-. 6. Further from a bare perusal of the application and list of documents therein, it is evident that most of the documents pertain to revenue record, maps and certified copies. [2025:RJ-JP:46880] (3 of 4) [CW-16637/2025] 7. Therefore, looking to the nature of the suit, the said listed documents in the application dated 24.09.2025 appear to be relevant for the adjudication of the lis, and the explanation furnished by the petitioner for delay, that the applicant was suffering from cancer and due to the said ailment could not provide the documents to his lawyer at appropriate stage, constitutes sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 8. Even otherwise, it is well-settled law that where the documents are relevant to the adjudication of the lis, the same should be allowed to be produced by way of an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and delay in production of the same can be compensated by imposing adequate cost. 9. It is also trite law that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. When there is a conflict between procedural technicalities and the cause of substantial justice, the latter must prevail; even though the documents have been filed with delay, while considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Court below committed illegality in dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 is set aside, and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC 24.09.2025 is allowed. Consequently, the documents annexed to the application are taken on record, subject to a cost of Rs.8,000/- for filing the documents with a delay. 11. Looking to the fact that the suit has been pending since 2011, the learned Trial Court is expected to expedite the hearing [2025:RJ-JP:46880] (4 of 4) [CW-16637/2025] of the suit, and while doing so, it is also expected that the learned Trial Court will not entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment. 12. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. 13. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-4