LAXMAN Vs. DEEP CHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.10 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 8, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 48/02 whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant No.2 filed under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC.

(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) have filed copy of the Patta which was exhibited by the court as Ex.1, though the original document of Patta was not produced before the trial court. According to the learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Chopra for the petitioner, since the plaintiffs had not produced the original Patta, the petitioner had submitted the application under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC, which has been rejected by the trial court. He has also submitted that the impugned order being not in consonance with the provisions of the Order XI Rule 14 of CPC, deserves to be set aside.

(3.) In the opinion of the court, there is no substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the impugned order passed by he trial court that the copy of the Patta produced by the respondents-plaintiffs has already been exhibited as Ex.1 and the trial court has directed that the plaintiffs shall produce the original of the said Patta, at the time of the cross-examination by the petitioner-defendant. The impugned order passed on the application of the petitioner under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC being discretionary in nature, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. It is also settled legal position that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited, and the High Court normally should not interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the courts below, unless the gross injustice has been caused to either of the parties or there is failure of justice occasioned to the aggrieved party. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or any gross injustice, being caused to the petitioner and hence the present petition does not deserve any consideration.