GHANSHYAMBHAI LALJIBHAI PANDYA Vs. NARMADABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:- "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass an order or quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.1.2019 passed by the learned 15th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, below Exh.52 in Special Civil Suit No.598 of 2007, insofar as the learned Trial Court has refused to mark as exhibits and give exhibit numbers to the documents produced at Mark 50/1 and 50/7 i.e. the agreement to sell dated 30.6.1992 and the possession receipt dated 30.6.1992 executed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the petitioner and be further pleased to direct the learned Trial Court to mark as exhibits and admit in evidence the documents produced at Mark 50/1 and 50/7 i.e. the agreement to sell dated30.6.1992 and the possession receipt dated 30.6.1992 executed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the petitioner (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.598 of 2007 pending before the Learned 15th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara. (C) ............."

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the original plaintiff who instituted Special Civil Suit No.598 of 2007 for seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.6.1992 executed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the petitioner and declaration to the extent that the consent terms dated 4.8.1993 arrived at between the respondents in Regular Civil Suit No.1209 of 2002 to be declared as non est, illegal and not binding to the petitioner and also sought for a permanent injunction to protect the possession of the petitioner. It has further been asserted in the petition that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are original owners of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.162 Paiki, 163, 164/A and 164/B respectively and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner. A substantial sale consideration is taken from the petitioner and the possession of the land in question has been handed over to the petitioner, which has been recorded and deduced in the agreement to sell itself. So in short, the possession has been handed over and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have also executed a possession receipt in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, after some lapse of period, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had obtained a permission for conversion of the land into non-agricultural use and also obtained a title clearance certificate and then executed a sale document. For a period of 15 years, the petitioner was put in possession but then, some unknown persons at the behest of the respondents had threatened of dire consequences and to dispossess the petitioner by claiming that the respondent No.6 herein was the owner of the land in question and upon inquiry, it has been discovered that in a clandestine manner, just with a view to defeat the right of the petitioner, a sale deed has also been executed in favour of the respondent No.6 on 20.11.2002 fraudulently. As a result of this, on 31.12.2007, the petitioner was constrained to file the suit, i.e. Special Civil Suit No.598 of 2007.

(3.) The respondents appeared and filed written statement and this transaction has been culminated further in filing of First Information Report (FIR) being No.I-147 of 2008 and another counter FIR against the petitioner, being No.103 of 2014. The petitioner therefore filed a petition for seeking quashment of the FIR by filing Special Criminal Application No.2707 of 2014, in which an order is passed not to take any coercive step. Subsequently, during the course of adjudication of the said proceedings, while leading evidence, the petitioner - original plaintiff produced the documents in origin, including original copy of the agreement to sell dated 30.6.1992 and possession receipt executed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the petitioner. All such documents were produced along with the list at Exh.50 with an application for production of documents. The petitioner also submitted his examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit at Exh.51. Subsequently, the petitioner on 20.11.2018, filed an application Exh.52 to give exhibit numbers to the documents which are produced vide aforesaid list Exh.50. Learned Trial Judge vide order dated 23.1.2019 has passed an order at Exh.52 whereby the request is refused to give exhibit numbers to the documents which are produced at Marks 50/1 and 50/7, i.e. the main the documents which are the basis of the suit, i.e. agreement to sell dated 30.6.1992 and possession receipt dated 30.6.1992. It is this order dated 23.1.2019 which is substantially made the subject matter of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.