ASHOK SHALIKRAM JAISWAL Vs. SATYANARAYAN ROOPLAL JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with consent at admission stage.

(2.) The petitioner is original defendant No.1. Respondent No.1-original plaintiff has instituted Special Civil Suit No.434 of 2009 for a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit house and also for recovery of 1/5th share in the amount of compensation received by the defendants towards acquisition of the portion of the suit house for widening of Jalna- Aurangabad road. After commencement of the trial and when respondent No.1-original plaintiff has examined four witnesses, the respondent-plaintiff has filed an application Exh.85 for production of documents. The petitioner and the other defendants have strongly resisted the said application by filing say over it. By the impugned order dated 15.12.2011, below Exh.85 in Special Civil Suit No.434 of 2009, the Trial Court has allowed the said application subject to costs of Rs.1500/- and thereby allowed production of documents produced along with the applications Exh.76 and 78. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by common order dated 13.12.2011, the Trial Court has rejected the applications Exh.76 and 78 on the ground that the plaintiff and his three witnesses have been cross-examined and if the production of these documents is permitted, the same will cause prejudice to the other side. The learned counsel submits that even then, after the examination of the 4 th witness, the respondent-plaintiff filed the application Exh.85 for production of documents and the Trial Court has allowed the said application Exh.85 and thereby allowed production of documents produced along with applications Exh.76 and 78. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner-defendant would have no opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses by referring those documents. The learned counsel submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-plaintiff died and as such the petitioner would not get any opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff by referring those documents. The learned counsel submits that though the documents sought to be produced on record are public documents, however, the petitioner would lose his valuable right of cross-examination by referring those documents. The learned counsel submits that the order impugned is thus liable to be quashed and set aside. This Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.