MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26th August 2008 whereby an application made by the petitioner under Order 12 Rule 3 (A) read with Section 151 CPC for issuance of directions to the plaintiff to admit photocopies of the plaint in an earlier suit and in case of his denial, permit the petitioner to lead secondary evidence, was dismissed.

(2.) THE learned trial court in its order observed that the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in 1991 and the suit was pending adjudication for about 17 years. The application was filed by the petitioner only to delay the proceedings and it was devoid of any substance and was misconceived. The averments of the petitioner that the documents go to the root of the controversy were also baseless. The plaintiff (respondent herein)had categorically denied his signatures on the photocopies of the alleged documents. The defendant just wanted to linger on the litigation by baseless applications. The recording of evidence cannot be made a never-ending process. The plea of the petitioner that he could not trace the Goswara number etc of the earlier suit was also disbelieved and the application was dismissed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner argued that in order to obtain certified copy of earlier plaint, he had made attempts for tracing out the Goswara number and had written a complaint to the District Judge regarding the record of Suit no. 672 of 1993 decided on 27th September 1994 titled as Mohd. Naseem vs. Ravi kakkar, but this record was not made available to him, therefore, his application for allowing him to lead secondary evidence should not have been dismissed by the trial court.