MANOJ Vs. SHRI NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner against the orders dt. 18.10.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara, whereby the learned District Judge has rejected the applications preferred by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for bringing certain documents on record. In both the writ petitions, common question is involved and, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order, while taking the facts from SBCWP No. 9696/2008. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 3 preferred a suit under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 for compensation on account of death of Smt. Rukma due to electric shock on 04.08.2006. In the said suit, the petitioner was impleaded as defendant as Smt. Rukma died on account of electric shock while working in the house of the petitioner, which was under construction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 C.P.C. and requested the Court for calling certain original documents from co -defendants No. 1 to 3, but the said application was rejected by the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 8 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for bringing the documents on record such as construction permission and map issued by the Gram Panchayat, Kotadi, representation given by the petitioner and other villagers, letter written by Tehsildar and amount deposited by the petitioner as demanded by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short 'the AWNL' hereinafter). The learned trial Court has rejected the said application while holding that earlier an application for summoning the original documents from defendants No. 1 to 3 preferred by the petitioner was rejected and, therefore, in view of the said rejection, it is not proper to take the documents on record as requested by the petitioner and proceeded to reject the said application vide order dt. 18.10.2008.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents sought to be produced on record by the petitioner are pertaining to the representations made by the petitioner and other villagers requesting the AWNL for removal of the line passing over the under constructed house of the petitioner and, therefore, those documents are very much relevant for the purpose of fixing the liability of the defaulter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if those documents are not taken on record, the petitioner will not be able to defend his case and the claimants will not get the just compensation.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.