BAJRANG LAL Vs. SMT. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Jain appears for respondent No. 2, the sole contesting respondent. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the case and at the request of the rival counsels, service upon other un-served respondents is dispensed with.

(2.) The present writ petition has been preferred, impugning the order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), whereby the application dated 21.03.2017 preferred by the respondent No. 2-defendant No. 3 before the Trial Court has been allowed.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-Smt. Shanti Devi had filed a suit for partition. During the course of the proceedings, the defendant No. 3-Babulal preferred an application under Order 8, Rule 1 (3) [sic Order 8, Rule 1 A (3) ] read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to place certain documents on record, which were claimed to be necessary to controvert the version of defendants No. 1 and 2. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu vide order dated 18.07.2017 with the following observations:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...