SAUDUL AZEEZ Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for partition, the plaintiff had claimed title on the basis of Will executed by one Raseeda Khatoon. The parties did not dispute the title of Raseeda Khaloon. The petitioners sought to get themselves impleaded in the suit being O. S. No. 838 of 1995 pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gorakhpur, on the strength of Hibanama, Memorandum or Will as the case may be, as pleaded in the application under Order 1, Rule 10. of the Code of Civil Procedure - The plaintiff had filed an application for direction upon the petitioner -applicant for addition of parties to produce the documents on which they had based their claim. By an order dated 18th November, 1997, the said application was allowed and the applicants were directed to produce the documents. Subsequently, the application for addition of parties was dismissed by an order dated 6th April, 1998 on the ground that despite having been given sufficient time, no documents were filed and that on the date 6th April. 1998. the applicant had absented himself. This order was challenged in revision being Civil Revision No. 160 of 1999. By an order dated 21st July. 1999. the revision was also dismissed. These orders have since been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(2.) MR . K. A. Qayyum. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the application on the date when the petitioner was absent. The petitioner had explained the reason why he was absent on the said date. But the same was not taken into consideration by the revisional Court. On the other hand, it had affirmed the order passed by the learned trial court on an erroneous view. He further contended that a photocopy of the document was produced before the trial court which was also on record on 6th April, 1998 which was overlooked by the learned trial court. Whereas the revisional Court had proceeded on the basis that the trial court had directed production of the original documents and that was not produced and production of photocopy was not sufficient. Mr. Qayyum contends that there was no order directing the petitioner to produce the original documents. The order was a simple order directing production of documents. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional court suffers from perversity and should, therefore, be set aside.

(3.) 1 have heard both the counsel at length.