RAMCHANDRA Vs. KAILASHCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three writ petitions arise out of the similar order dt. 30.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Beawar, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), in three different suits of similar nature filed by the respondent -plaintiff against the petitioners -defendants in respect of the three premises belonging to the respondent -plaintiff, and therefore, they are decided together by way of this common order. In all the three writ petitions, the order under challenge is the order dt. 30.11.2013 passed by the trial Court in three different suits, permitting the respondent -plaintiff to produce the copy of 'kirayanama' (rent note) dt. 27.03.1954 registered on 05.07.1954. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Bharat Saini for the petitioners that the respondent -plaintiff had produced the copy of the rent note in all the three suits, after the petitioners -defendants submitted their documents and that the said rent note was not produced alongwith the plaint. He also submitted that the respondent -plaintiff had not submitted any application showing cause as to why the said rent note was not produced alongwith the plaint and the trial Court also without assigning any reasons for permitting the respondent -plaintiff to produce the said document, rejected the objection applications of the petitioners.

(2.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff had produced the document in question namely, the rent note at the belated stage when the petitioners -defendants had filed their written statement and also produce their documents in support thereof. However, it is pertinent to note that the said document namely kirayanama has already been referred by the respondent -plaintiff in the plaint itself. It is true that such document referred to in the plaint ought to have been entered in the list of documents and produced alongwith the copy of the plaint by the plaintiff, and if not produced, the plaintiff ought to have given explanation for not producing it, and that the Court ought to have given reasons for permitting the plaintiff to produce at a later stage, more particularly when such production is objected by the defendants. In the instant case, the respondent -plaintiff had neither filed any application nor the trial Court had assigned any reasons for permitting the respondent -plaintiff to produce the said document at a later stage. However, since the evidence in the suit has not commenced, the petitioners -defendants would have ample opportunity to deal with the said document during the course of the evidence, and hence the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any substance in the present petitions, and they are dismissed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in each connected writ petitions.