PARBAT SINGH Vs. HEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner while challenging the order dated 30.4.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Balotra, District Barmer (hereinafter referred to 'the trial court') whereby the application preferred on behalf of Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram under Order 16 Rule 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred a suit for permanent injunction and declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 18.12.2006 executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of disputed plot may be cancelled and declared as void and for restraining the respondents No.1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in relation to the plot in question. In response to the said suit filed by the petitioner, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent- defendants No.1 and 2. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial court on 13.10.2009 and list of witnesses has also been submitted by the parties on 27.10.2009. During the pendency of the suit, on 4.4.2013, two persons i.e. Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram preferred an application under Order 16 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and has contended that their plot is situated adjoining to the disputed plot which was acquired by them through sale deed and gift deed and they want to give evidence in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and also want to produce some documents in evidence. The said application is contested by the respondent- defendants on the ground that in the list of witnesses submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff on 27.10.2009, name of Rupa Ram was not shown as witness and, therefore, his statement cannot be recorded and no document can be taken on record at the instance of Rupa Ram.

(3.) 4.2013 preferred on behalf of Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram while holding that though the applicants can be produced as witnesses but no document can be taken on record at their instances and the prayer of the applicants to this extent was rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2013, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.