IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10916/2009 Smt.Carol J. Sen and others vs Shri Madan Lal and others. Date of Order 17th DECEMBER, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. N.K.Maloo for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Agrawal ) Mr. Alok Sharma ) Mr. Inderjeet Singh) for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition the petitioners-defendants have challenged the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City,Jaipur by which application under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC filed by petitioners was dismissed.
The petitioners-defendats moved application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC and submitted that the defendants filed written statement on 13.1.2006 alongwith list of documents and documents mentioned in para 2 of the application could not be filed at that time as they were not available with the petitioners. These documents are certified copies of documents obtained from various Courts and relevant for disposal of the case, hence, may be taken on record.
The plaintiff-respondent in his reply to the application submitted that the case was fixed for defendants evidence and in the absence of evidence this application has been filed to delay the proceedings. The defendants have not given any sufficient reason for non production of documents with the written statement and further submitted that the documents are not relevant, hence, they cannot be taken on record as the suit is only for specific performance of the contract, hence, the application may be dismissed.
The trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application by impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-Raghubir Sen in the year 1983. The written statement was filed by the defendants on 13.1.2006 and alongwith the written statement list of documents was submitted in which it was mentioned that certified copies of documents mentioned at Serial Nos.13 to 20 will be submitted after obtaining certified copies. This application for taking documents on record has been submitted after more than three years and no reason has been given for submitting certified copies so late, even this fact has not been mentioned that when these certified copies were obtained. Only this fact has been asserted in the application that these documents are certified copies, hence, genuine and relevant for disposal of the case. No relevancy has been shown in the application and the learned trial Court has rightly observed that these documents are not relevant for disposal of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relevancy of documents is not to be seen till documents are taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2006 (3) WLC (Raj.) 264 (Murlidhar vs. Nandkishore & Ors.) in which it was held that where documents are material should have been taken on record and the relevancy could be adjudicated thereafter. In the aforesaid case application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking documents regarding subsequent events on record on the ground that duing the pendency of the suit plaintiff had already one more shop which fact could not come to the defendants duing the pendency of the suit and this fact came to the knowledge of defendant only during pendency of appeal which was very much relevant for asercetaining reasonable and bonafide necessity of the landlord in a suit for eviction and in such circumstances documents were taken on record. In the present case all these documents were in the knowledge of the defendants prior to filing of written statement, hence, it was obligatory on the part of the defendants to file certified copies of these documents alongwith the written statement. Relavancy of documents is also to be seen while taking on record at such later stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on 2008 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1346 (Yogesh Kumar vs. ADJ (Fast Track) in which the Court held that documents which were filed at the time of cross examination of plaintiff’s witnesses should have been taken on record as defendant was not in possession of the documents at the relevant time and he had already placed on record photostat copies of those documents which were very relevant and were required for proper adjudication of the case. In the present case only three documents have been mentioned in the list of documents whereas the defendant has moved application for taking 12 documents on record which ought to have been in possession of the defendant as there were pertaining to suits filed by or against defendant-Raghubir Sen or his heirs. He has also placed reliance on 2008 (6)WLC (Raj.) 624 Ram Kishor Machwal vs. ADJ No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in which hand writing expert opinion was allowed to be taken on record as dispute was between same parties in relation to same property and hand writing expert had already died. This case also does not help to the petitioner as documents mentioned in the application are not pertaining to the dispute between the same parties and in relation to same property.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on 2009 (1) RLR, 164 (Kishan Chand vs. Pankaj Abbani) in which while rejecting application it was held that the purpose of Order 8 Rule 1, 1-A CPC which cast an obligation upon the defendant to produce documents alongwith the written statement or with leave of court within 90 days was sought to be frustrated by filing such application at the fag-end of trial and further it was observed that the documents sought to be produced were not only irrelevant but were produced with a view to delay the trial. In the present case suit for specific performance is pending since 1983 and this application was filed after three years of filing written statements and that too at the fag-end of the trial i.e. defendant’s evidence and documents were also not relevant.
In the list of documents it was mentioned that documents mentioned at Serial No.13 to 20 will be submitted after obtaining certified copies whereas by application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC only three out of mentioned 8 documents have been submitted after obtaining certified copies and other 9 documents have been submitted to be taken on record which do not find place in the list of documents. As far relevancy of documents are concerned, these documents are not relevant for the disposal of the case. By most of the documents petitioner want to show condition of health of petitioner-Raghubir Sen which is apparently not relevant for disposal of the suit for specific performance. By some documents petitioner want to prove relation between plaintiff-Madan Lal and one of the defendant-Lajpat Rai Bishnoi which is also not relevant for disposal of present case. Some documents are power of attorney and Vakalatnama given by defendant-Raghubir Sen to his counsel Shri Vidya Bhushan Sharma which were filed in different civil suits which is not relevant for disposal of this case.
In the light of the above discussion it becomes clear that the documents submitted alongwith application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are neither relevant nor required for proper adjudication of the case and these documents sought to be produced at the fag-end of the trial with a view to delay the trial which is pending since 26 years and impugned order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference.
Hence, the writ petition of the petitioners is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.S.CHAUDHARI) J
teekam
Date of Order DECEMBER, 2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. N.K.Maloo for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Agrawal ) Mr. Alok Sharma ) Mr. Inderjeet Singh) for the respondents. **** Since the writ petition has been dismissed, the stay application also stands dismissed. (K.S.CHAUDHARI), J teekam