RAMSWAROOP Vs. RAMESHWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22nd Sept. 1997 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 11/94 by which the learned trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition by passing preliminary decree holding that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and 2 each is having 6/20th share in the disputed property whereas defendants No. 3 and 4 are having 1/20th share each in the property.

(3.) IN view of the above submissions, there is no force in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC because the fact is already an admitted fact and the suit of the plaintiff is founded on the basis of having the property being ancestral. Therefore, the application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC is dismissed. So far as application under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC is concerned, a document, which is relevant for just decision of the suit or appeal can be taken on record, but when the fact is in not disputed with respect to the ownership of the property vesting in Radhakishan, there is no reason for allowing the above application. Even if the application is allowed, it will not effect the merit of the case and the document which is sought to be produced, only to prove the ownership of Radhakishan, which is an admitted fact. Therefore, the application under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC is also dismissed.