STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AYUB MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common order governs disposal of these two writ petitions filed by the petitioner - PHED and the Gram Panchayat -Partapura. These writ petition have been filed by the petitioner. Public Health & Engineering Department of the State (PHED) and the Gram Panchayat Partapura, aggrieved by the impugned order dt. 20.04.2009, whereby the learned trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gaddi, District Banswara rejected the application filed by the defendant - PHED in an injunction suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 refusing to take on record certain documents including the allotment letter of the land in question in favour of PHED for construction of water pumping station etc. The impugned order refers to a previous order passed by the learned trial Court on 04.02.2008, copy whereof is annexed with writ petition as Annex. 5. In the aforesaid order, the defendant No. 4 i.e. the Gram Panchayat Partapura, Tehsil - Gaddi, District: Banswara, also sought to produce the record of case -file No. 295 and certain receipts, which purportedly established the allotment of land in question in favour of PHED, however, that was also refused by the learned trial Court and reiterating the said stand, the learned trial Court again rejected the said request of the State (PHED) vide the impugned order dt. 20.04.2009.

(2.) MR . Vimal K. Mathur and Mr. S.K. Mathur, learned counsels for the petitioner -PHED and Gram Panchayat - Partapura, submit that in the absence of aforesaid documents being taken on record the defence against the injunction suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 cannot be established that the land in question was duly allotted in favour of PHED and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction. He further submitted that there would be serious miscarriage of justice, if such documents are not taken on record.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court was not justified in refusing to take on record the basic document, which could establish the title of the defendant -PHED over the land in question, and which could go the root of the matter in the present injunction suit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the failure to exercise the jurisdiction properly by the learned trial Court, would require interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be set and aside and the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the present writ petitions filed by the petitioner -PHED of the State and the Gram Panchayat Partapura, are hereby allowed and setting aside the impugned order dt. 04.02.2008 and 20.04.2009, the learned trial Court is directed to take on record the documents sought to be produced by the Gram Panchayat and the PHED and proceed further with trial accordingly. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned trial Court below forthwith.