NARAYAN Vs. RAM SAHAI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made to the order dated 27.07.2015, passed by the Additional District judge, Lalsot, District Dausa dismissing the petitioner-defendant's (hereinafter "the defendant") application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC.

(2.) Admittedly the suit for declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter "the plaintiffs") was filed on 18.02.2007. Written statement was filed on 21.12.2008. Issues were framed on 09.02.2015 and on 28.05.2015, the plaintiffs' evidence was closed. At this stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC inter alia seeking to bring on record certain judgments passed in disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendant by the revenue courts. The trial court on consideration of the matter found that the documents referred to in the application under Order 8 rule 1A(3) CPC were in possession of the defendant at the time of filing of the written statement and no reasons have been proffered as to why the said documents were not filed with the written statement, but instead sought to be filed belatedly subsequent to the closure of the plaintiffs' evidence. In this view of the matter, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC refused to entertain the application, grant leave and dismissed the application.

(3.) Mr. K.N. Sharma, appearing for the defendant submits that the documents in issue are of unquestionable authenticity being the judgments of the revenue courts and taking them on record belatedly could not have caused any prejudice to the plaintiffs. Instead it was in the interest of justice for the trial court to exercise its discretion as the said documents were relevant to the suit inasmuch as they were indicative of the defendant being adopted by one Shivnath @ Shyonath.