[2025:RJ-JP:43403] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15618/2025 Narain Singh Lohia S/o Late Shri Tehil Singh Lohia, R/o 115, Sterling Road, Wood Green, London N22 4NB (Address Wrongly Mentioned As 115, Terling Road, Wood Green, London) ---Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Naresh Kaur Lohia D/o Late Shri Tehil Singh Lohia, R/o 68 Albany Road, Enfield Modlex, EN3 5UK (Address Wrongly Mentioned As 68 A Albany Road, Enfield Modlex, EN3, 5UK) 2. Vishram Saini S/o Dayanand Saini, R/o Rambas Tehsil Govindgarh, District Alwar Rajasthan. 3. Usman Khan S/o Subban Khan, R/o Baroli, Tehsil Govindgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan ---Defendants-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aatish Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, whereby the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration in respect of the sale deed dated 16.02.2016 and the sale deed dated 20.02.2024 and sought a relief that the aforesaid documents be declared null and void. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the photocopy of the sale deed was filed along with the plaint, but the DLC Rates fixed by the Registration and Stamp Department, Government of Rajasthan, and the certificate of Syed Wasif Ali [2025:RJ-JP:43403] (2 of 4) [CW-15618/2025] dated 25.07.2025 were not filed; therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid documents were very much necessary for adjudication of the main suit, yet the learned trial Court has rejected the same vide impugned order in an arbitrary and perverse manner on the ground of delay. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and submits that the learned Trial Court, after due examination of the pleadings of the parties, has rightly dismissed the application, as the petitioner failed to give any justification for filing the same at the belated stage of evidence. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the record. 6. From the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner has filed the main suit for declaring the sale deed dated 16.02.2016, as well as the sale deed dated 20.02.2024, to be null and void with consequential reliefs. 7. It is an undisputed fact that a photocopy of the sale deed dated 16.02.2016 was filed along with the plaint. However, the certified photocopy of the same was not filed due to lack of legal advice. From the record, it is also revealed that the petitioner has prayed for taking on record the certificate/ letter written by Syed Wasif Ali dated 25.07.2025, along with the DLC Rates of the property in question issued by the Registration and Stamp Department, Government of Rajasthan. [2025:RJ-JP:43403] (3 of 4) [CW-15618/2025] 8. From a bare look at the said documents, it is evident that all three documents are necessary documents for the just and proper adjudication of the main suit. 9. It is true that the plaintiff has not filed the aforesaid documents along with the plaint, but the suit is yet in its initial stage, and the plaintiff's evidence is going on. 10. It is also pertinent to mention that the learned Trial Court rejected the application merely on the ground of delay, whereas it is a well-settled principle of 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. 11. Therefore, while taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Court below has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the application dated 04.08.2025 filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 08.09.2025 is quashed and the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner dated 04.08.2025 is also allowed, and the learned Trial Court is directed to take the documents sought to be produced on record. In order to compensate for the delay occasioned in filing the application, the plaintiff/petitioner shall pay the costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents. 13. It is also made clear that if the respondents wishes to file any additional documents in rebuttal, they shall be at liberty to do so before their evidence is started. [2025:RJ-JP:43403] (4 of 4) [CW-15618/2025] 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 15. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Sudha/32