PREM LAL Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was the plaintiff in the trial Court. He is aggrieved by the order, Annexure P-7 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior) , Court No.2, Palampur in an application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, registered as CMA No. 136 of 2016 in Civil Suit No. 293/2011. He has approached learned trial Court for seeking permission to produce on record of the suit, copy of Misal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid and copy of judgment and decree passed by trial Court itself in previously instituted Civil Suit bearing No. 341/92 titled Prem Lal Vs. Roshan Lal and others, on the grounds inter-alia that the same are essentially required for the just decision of the case. The application was resisted and contested on the grounds inter-alia that the same being belated cannot be allowed at the stage when the suit is already ripened for hearing arguments. Also that, petitioner-plaintiff could have produced the documents in question at an appropriate stage during the proceedings in the main suit. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the rival contentions has concluded that since the filing of application has been delayed and as the documents were available from the very beginning with the petitioner-plaintiff, hence the application cannot be allowed nor the permission to produce the same on record granted. In view of the copy of latest Jamabandi already on record the Misal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid, according to learned trial Court is not required for the just decision of case.

(2.) On taking into consideration the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality and irregularity in dismissing the application for the reason that the prayer for producing the documents in question on record is not only belated but the same are also not required for just and effective decision of the case. As already held by learned trial Judge, the latest Jamabandi of the suit land is already on record. Otherwise also, nothing is there in the pleadings in the plaint as to how Misal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid is a necessary document for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy in the main suit. As regards, the copy of judgment and decree passed in the previously instituted suit, again there is no pleadings in the plaint that the same pertains to the suit land or the previously instituted suit had any nexus with the present litigation. It is well settled that evidence beyond the pleadings should not be permitted to be produced. Above all, certified copy of judgment and decree can otherwise also be produced/cited in the Court during the course of arguments.

(3.) Having said so, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of.