KALYAN SAHAI S/O LATE SHRI HANUMANARAM Vs. MANGI LAL SELIBET DISCIPLE (BRAMCHARI CHELA) SHRI CHETANPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner-defendant (hereafter 'the defendant') and perused the impugned order dated 7.10.2014 passed by the District Judge, Ajmer dismissing the defendant's application under Order 8, Rule 1A(3)C CPC, 1908.

(2.) Mr. Rajeev Surana appearing for the defendant submitted that the document dated 2.2.2008 sought to be taken on record in the probate proceedings before the trial court was extremely relevant for a fair adjudication. He submitted that yet the trial Court has perfunctorily dismissed the said application wrongly recording that it was executed on a Rs. 50 stamp paper when in fact was on a Rs. 100 one.

(3.) Mr. Reashm Bhargava appearing for the respondent - plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff) submitted that it is not a right of the defendant to have documents belatedly filed taken on record. He submitted that Order 8, Rule 1A(3) CPC provides that the document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant along with the written statement but is not so produced, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Mr. Bhargava submitted that the matter of taking a document subsequently filed on record is in the discretion of the trial court and for the exercise of which surrounding circumstances and the facts obtaining have to be taken into consideration. Mr. Bhargava further submitted that in this context, the trial court has taken into consideration various facts in rejecting the application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC including fact that the Adhikar Patra purportedly executed on 2.2.2008 was purchased in Gulabpura Tehsil Hurda, Bhilwara but was certified by the Notary in Masooda. Further, as the purported Adhikar Patra dated 2.2.2008 was belatedly filed and no explanation from whose possession it had been obtained by the defendant was proffered nor were the circumstances in which the defendant came into possession of a document unrelated to him explained, the trial court found Adhikar Patra dated 2.2.2008 very suspect and of little probative worth for a fair adjudication of the issue before it. Mr. Bhargava submitted that the trial court having set out multiple reasons for the non exercise of its discretion under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) CPC there is no warrant to interfere therewith by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.