AASEEN Vs. RAM VILAS MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners -defendants are aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bari, District Dholpur whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the respondent -plaintiff under Order 13, Rule 10 CPC and has summoned the court file from another court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of rent against the petitioners before the learned Magistrate. The petitioners, while filing their written statement, had claimed that the suit is not maintainable as two other brothers of the plaintiff, namely Subhash Chandra and Kedar Nath, have not been impleaded as a party as the property in dispute is co -jointly owned by the petitioner and his brothers. In rejoinder filed by the respondent -plaintiff, he clearly claimed that there was a partition suit which has been filed. The said partition suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 23.9.1999 on the basis of a compromise which was entered between the brothers. While examining himself as a witness, the plaintiff wanted to mark a certified copy of the compromise dated 23.9.1999, entered between him and his brothers, as an exhibit. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner objected that since the document has not been mentioned in the list of documents, and since the original document was filed in the partition suit which had to be summoned before the certified copy could be marked as an exhibit, no exhibit could be marked on the said document by the court. Due to this objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent -plaintiff filed an application under Order 13, Rule 10 CPC wherein he prayed that the original record of the aforesaid suit be summoned from the District Judge, Jaipur. After hearing both the parties, by impugned order dated 10.3.2014, the learned Magistrate has allowed the application. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and considered the case laws cited at the Bar.