BHAROSI LAL AND ANR Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions have been directed against the order dated 20-9-1989, passed by learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, in Civil Suit Nos. 10/89 and 11/89, whereby the applications of the petitioners submitted under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. were rejected. As the facts of both the revisions are similar and as both the applications were rejected by the learned Civil Judge by one common order, both the revisions are decided by one common order.

(2.) The brief relevant facts of these revisions are that Bharosilal petitioner sold the disputed property by two registered sale deeds dated 24-7-1984, and 28-7-1984, for Rs. 10,000.00 each in the names of Bhagwati Lal and Nav Ratan. The plaintiff non-petitioner filed two suits on 29-8-1984, for preemption against Bharosilal Bhagwati Lal and Bharosilal-Navratan. In both these suits, the petitioners, submitted written statement. In Para No. 10 of the written statement, they mentioned as under :

(3.) On 24-7-1989, before the evidence of the plaintiff was started, the petitioners in both the cases submitted applications under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C., mentioning therein that on 25-7-1984, there was an agreement in writing on stamp paper between Bhagwatilal and Bharosilal for reselling the disputed-property to Bharosilal, of which reference is also made in Para No. 10 of the written statement; that Issue No. 3 has also been framed on the allegations of written statement : that after the aforesaid agreement, the disputed property was re-sold on 25-9-1984, by registered sale deed to Bharosilal for which there is a reference in Para No. 10 of the written statement; that the aforesaid documents were not in possession of the petitioners at the time of framing of issues ; that both these documents were with the wife of Bhagwatilal ; that the wife of Bhagwatilal left the documents at the house of her brother at Kota ; that the documents were mixed in some other papers and were not traceable at the relevant time ; that on 2-7-1989, when they went to Kota, they found the documents; that under these circumstances the documents could not be produced at the time of framing of the issues and that the suit is at the primary stage. It was prayed that the documents be taken on record. The applications were supported by an affidavit of Bharosilal. The plaintiff non-petitioner opposed the applications by alleging that both the documents are basis of the defence of the petitioners and as such the petitioners should have filed the documents along with the written statement under 0.8 R. 1 and 2 CPC., that if the documents were not in possession of the petitioners at the relevant time the petitioners should have shown the documents in the list ; that the suit is pending since 17-11-1986, for the evidence of the plaintiff ; that the petitioners have not shown any sufficient reason for not filing the documents at the time of framing of the issues; that the agreement is doubtful ; that this averment of the petitioners that the documents were in possession of the wife of Biiagwati and she left them at her brother's house at Kota, can not be believed ; that the agreement was not ready and as such the petitioners did not file the same previously and that the documents have been prepared intentionally later on for defeating the plaintiff's right. It was prayed that the application be dismissed. The trial court vide its order dated 20-9-1989, dismissed the application of the petitioners and thus refused to take the documents submitted by the petitioners on record. Against this order, the petitioners filed the present revisions.