Vimla Bai vs Nirmala Bai on 19 May, 2010

                           W.P.No.6702/2010

   Vimla Bai & others                               Nirmala Bai & others




19.5.2010
       Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Harmeet
Ruprah, counsel for petitioners.
       This petition is directed against an order dated 8.4.2010 by the
Civil Judge Class-I, Narsinghpur in civil suit no.20-A/2005, by which
an application filed by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C.,
was rejected.
       Shri Ruprah, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners submitted
that earlier same application was filed by the petitioners which was
rejected by the trial Court by order dated 22.7.2003, against which
petitioners herein filed a petition before this Court, which was
registered as W.P.No.27721/2003 and by order dated 15.12.2003
Annexure P-1,          the writ petition was allowed with following
directions :-
                        "Petitioners have filed this petition
                challenging the order dt.22.7.2003, by which the
                trial Court has rejected the application filed by
                petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of C.P.C.
                The aforesaid application has been rejected on
                the ground that plaintiff has not filed aforesaid
                documents along with the plaint and there is no
                explanation for delay.

                          From the perusal of order it appears that
                the aforesaid documents were relied upon by the
                plaintiff and defendants previous to this date has
                already got inspected these documents. Though
                there is delay in filing aforesaid documents, but
                the trial has not commenced and both the
                parties have not adduced any of the evidence.
                The aforesaid document relates to payment of
                rent alleged to be signed by defendants, (which
                is disputed before me) and it has to be
                considered by the trial Court. As the aforesaid
                documents are necessary for the just decision of
                the case, but the aforesaid prayer has been
                made by the petitioners after a delay, in the
                circumstances, the application deserves to be
                allowed on costs.

                         Considering the aforesaid, this petition is
                allowed. The order dt.22.7.2003 passed by the
                trial Court is set aside and the application filed by
                the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of
                C.P.C., is allowed, subject to payment of costs of
                           W.P.No.6702/2010

     Vimla Bai & others                      Nirmala Bai & others




               Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) by the
               petitioners, payable before the next date of
               hearing."

        It is submitted by the petitioners that the cost was required to
be deposited before the trial Court on or before 20th January, 2004,
which was the date fixed after the date of passing of order dated
15.12.2003 by this Court, but due to inadvertence the cost could not
be deposited. However it was deposited on 2.5.2005. As the cost
was not deposited as fixed by this Court, petitioners herein moved
another application under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C., for production of
same documents, which were earlier produced by the petitioners by
an application, which was rejected on 22.7.2003 by the trial Court.
The trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that earlier
similar application was rejected and the cost, as directed by this Court
was not deposited by the petitioners. Hence the second application
filed for production of same documents was not maintainable and
accordingly it was rejected.
        Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that due to mistake
on the part of petitioners the cost could not be deposited. However it
has already been deposited on 2.5.2005, so time period be extended
for deposit of cost and the documents filed by the petitioners may be
received in evidence.
        Considering the short contention made by Shri Ruprah, learned
Senior Advocate, we find it appropriate to dispose of the matter. In
the opinion of this Court it is not necessary to keep this matter
pending as the suit is pending since 25 years and it was also stated
by Shri Ruprah that after 15.12.2003 till 2010 the matter remained
pending before the trial Court for consideration on various
interlocutory applications.
        In view of aforesaid, this petition is finally disposed of with
following directions :-
1.      Petitioners are directed to pay further cost of Rs.1,000/-
                            W.P.No.6702/2010

      Vimla Bai & others                      Nirmala Bai & others




(Rupees one thousand only) to the respondents, which shall be paid

to the respondents on or before the next date fixed in the trial Court.

2. On deposit of aforesaid additional cost, the trial Court shall
receive the documents produced by the petitioners, stated to be the
same documents for which an application was rejected by the trial
court by order dated 22.7.2003.

3. The trial Court after receiving the documents in evidence shall
extend an opportunity to the other side for production of documents
and thereafter shall proceed, in accordance with law.

4. As this order has been passed in view of aforesaid
circumstances, liberty is granted to the respondents to seek review of
this order, in case they are aggrieved by this order and in that regard
Shri Harmeet Ruprah, learned counsel for petitioners shall accept
notice on behalf of petitioners.

C.C., as per rules.

     (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)                            (G.S.Solanki)
          JUDGE                                         JUDGE

M.