KANTA BHATIA Vs. MAHINDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties are playing a game of numbers. But both sides are laying claim on one plot of land but on different numbers.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 claims to have purchased a 100 sq. yds. of land at Shadi Khampur, Delhi alongwith her husband from one Mr. Mangal Sen and his wife way back on 1.2.1985 which was covered in Khasra No. 768/33 and re-numbered as 2162/T-13.Her husband died on 2.2.1986 and shestarted in property No. R-43,West Patel Nagar. She complains that meanwhile respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that they had purchased this plot of land in 1995. Apprehending forcible dispossession she filed Suit No. 422A/96 and obtained an interim injunction on 4.7.1996 whereby corpus of the suit property was placed, in the custody of the Court. Her injunction application was later dismissed on 6.11.1997 but restored again. She alleges that meanwhile respondent broke open the lock and constructed a room over the disputed land and handed over possession to two tenants. She moved a contempt petition for this which was pending. While her suit was fixed for final arguments she had moved an application under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 of Civil Procedure Code for directing respondents to file the sale deed of property No. 2162/T-7. Trial Court wrongly dismissed her application on the ground that she had filed suit in respect of property No. 7-A and there was no point in asking respondents to file sale documents of property No. 7. She feels aggrieved and has filed this revision petition.

(3.) Trial Court, in my view, had dismissed petitioner's application rightly because sale documents of property No. 7had no relevance to her suit subject matter wherein was property No. 7-A. Petitioner had failed to show how those documents were necessary for the just adjudication of the suit. Otherwise it was for her to prove her case and she could not call upon respondents to do it for her.