SHEOJI RAM CHOUDHARY Vs. VIMAL KUMAR @ VIMLESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant, challenging the order dated 18/2/2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Niwai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.62/2008, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application of the respondent-plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14 of CPC for taking on record the additional documents.

(2.) After having heard the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking eviction of the petitioner-defendant before the Trial Court, in which the petitioner-defendant had filed the written statement. It appears that the petitioner thereafter had amended the written statement after producing on record the copies of the plaint and written statement as well as the copy of the adoption deeds produced in a suit filed by Shri Gopal Lal alleged adopted father of the respondent, against one tenant named Udhav Das. On the basis of the said amended written statement, the Trial Court had framed two additional issues. The respondent-plaintiff thereafter moved an application under Order 7, Rule 14 of CPC for producing on record the judgment in the said suit between Gopal Lal & Udhav Das, which application has been allowed by the Trial Court.

(3.) Though it has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. D.K. Dixit for the petitioner that the respondent could not have produced the additional document at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiff had already started, the Court does not find any substance in the said submission. When the petitioner himself had filed the copy of the plaint, written statement and the adoption deed produced in the other suit between Gopal Lal and Udav Das, and had also accordingly amended the written statement and the Trial Court had also framed the additional issues thereon, the respondent/plaintiff was perfectly justified in producing the copy of the judgment in the said suit. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. By this order, the stay application and other pending application, if any also stand dismissed. Petition Dismissed.