HARI RAM Vs. VISHNU SWAROOP AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Hari Ram -defendant assailing order dt. 19.08.2011 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Kotputli, District Jaipur (for short 'the Trial Court') whereby three applications filed by the Respondent No. 1 -Plaintiff respectively first one under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC; second one under Order 16(1) Rule 6 CPC and third one again under Order 16(1) Rule 6 CPC for summoning Pradeep Kumar Bansal S/o. late Shri Prathvi Raj and Subhash Bansal S/o. late Shri Ramji Lal and Rakesh S/o. Shri Shyam Lal. Aforesaid applications were filed by the plaintiff -Respondent No. 1 in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner in the present writ petition has sought to challenge only that part of the order by which learned Trial Court has summoned aforesaid three witnesses for identifying handwriting and signatures of Late Shri Prathvi Raj and Late Shri Ramji Lal and other parties to the agreement. Mrs. Sonal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -defendant has argued that the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the aforesaid application by relying upon order dt. 19.02.2008 passed by this Court. It is submitted that the aforesaid order was passed by this Court in favour of the Respondent No. 1 -plaintiff on the admissibility of the document dt. 30.12.1964 and this Court had not passed any order with regard to summoning of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Shri Prithvi Raj and Shri Ramji Lal, who signed the document dt. 30.12.1964, have expired and the learned Trial Court has wrongly directed to summon Rakesh S/o. Shyam Lal, who has no relevancy with the document and such direction has been issued by the Trial Court in a cursory manner. When the very existence of the document has been denied by the petitioner which has been signed by Shri Ram Niwas, Shri Deen Dayal, Shri Ram Chandra Pushkar and Shri Bhagwan Das, there was no need for summoning the aforesaid witnesses. There is no provision in law which allows summoning of legal heirs or sons of employee or legal heirs or sons of deceased signatory of a document to prove their handwriting or signatures. Suit was filed way back in the year 2001 whereas application in question has been filed belatedly in 2006. Now Pradeep Kumar Bansal and Subhash Bansal have also died and only one witness remains to be examined.

(2.) MR . Ajay Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has opposed writ petition and submitted that the impugned order was a composite order by which the aforesaid document dt. 30.12.1964 was allowed to be taken on record by the Trial Court. The order was challenged by the petitioner in its entirety by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12871/2011 which has been dismissed by this Court by detailed order dt. 03.10.2013. Besides, when the document has been taken on record, it is very necessary to prove such document by production of relevant witnesses. Even Shri Prithvi Raj and Shri Ramji Lal had died, but their sons namely Pradeep Kumar Bansal and Subhash Bansal respectively and Rakesh son of their cashier Shri Shyam Lal have rightly been summoned by the Trial Court to prove their handwriting and signatures.