MUKAT BEHARI Vs. SHYAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 20. 10. 1992, passed by M. J. M. I Class, Bharatpur, in Civil Suit No. 303 of 1987, by which he dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioners submitted under Order 13, Rule 2 C. P. C. for taking certified copy of the compromise deed and the map on the record.

(2.) BRIEF relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant-non-petitioners from raising any constructions on the disputed joint chowk and the constructions which have been raised should be removed. Issues were framed on 8. 1. 1992. On 15. 10. 1992, the petitioners submitted an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC mentioning therein that at the time of filing the suit, the certified copy of the compromise-deed dated 22. 9. 1948, and of the Map dated 21. 10. 1965, were not available and as such they were not filed alongwith the map. These documents were traced out on 18. 10. 1992, at the time of Deepawali. It was further mentioned that these documents are necessary for decision of the case. It was prayed that they may be taken on record. This application was supported by an affidavit of petitioner Kailash Chand. No reply of this application was filed by the non-petitioners. The trial Court vide its order dated 20. 10. 1992, rejected the application only on the ground that the reasons given by the petitioner in their application are not satisfactory. I heard Mr. J. P. Goyal, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. C. Gupta, counsel for the Non-petitioners and have gone through the record and also the various judgements cited by them.

(3.) IN the present case also, the compromise deed has also been mentioned in the plaint itself and Issue No. 2 has already been framed by the trail Court in this connection. The document is a certified copy of compromise deed. The map is also certified copy. Evidence has not been started of the parties as yet. The defendant has enough time to rebut these documents.