MADAN LAL Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners -defendants challenging the order dt. 04.05.2012 passed by the Addl. District &: Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, Sawaimadhopur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No. 49/2008, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order XIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC. It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Asgar Khan for the petitioners that the application was filed by the petitioners to call for the document namely Kirayanama of 1980 from the Office of District Collector, Sawaimadhopur, as the Kirayanama sought to be produced by the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff in the suit was forged one. According to him, the appellate Court has wrongly rejected the said application on the ground of the document being very old. However, learned counsel Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has submitted that no such contention was taken up by the petitioners -defendants in the suit and since the decree of eviction was passed by the trial Court, such a false contention was raised at the appellate stage.

(2.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the appellate Court, it appears that the decree of eviction has already been passed against the present petitioners -defendants and the appeal against the same is pending before the appellate Court. Pending the appeal, the petitioners had filed the application under Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC seeking calling for the Kirayanama of 1980 from the Office of District Collector, Sawaimadhopur, on the ground that the Kirayanama produced by the respondent -plaintiff was forged one. The said application has been dismissed by the appellate Court. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent -No. 1, the petitioners had not taken up any such contention in the suit that the said Kirayanama relied upon by the respondent -plaintiff in the suit was forged one. In any case, the appellate Court after considering the facts, rejected the said application which order is just and proper. There being no perversity or illegality in the impugned order, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.