MANNA LAL Vs. BHURALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner assailing the order dated 13.7.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Behror, District Alwar in Civil Suit No.34/157/2003 titled as Manna Lal Vs. Bhura Lal & Ors., whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) and Order 18 Rule 17 readwith Section 151 CPC.

(2.) Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit against the defendant-respondents for permanent injunction stating therein that the plot in dispute belongs to his ancestors and he is peacefully using the same for his personal use, but now the defendant/respondents are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and prayed to restrain the defendant/respondents by issuing permanent injunction. The defendant/respondents filed written statement denying averments made in the plaint and stated that the disputed property belongs to one Prahlad Balmiki, who sold the plot to Satyapal and Satyapal sold the same to Sunil Dhanka and handed over the possession to him. It is also stated that the defendant/respondents have no concern with the disputed property. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues on 27.4.2006. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and produced affidavits of two witnesses Shyodayal and Kalicharan, but failed to produce the witnesses for cross-examination, therefore, the learned trial Court closed the plaintiff's evidence on 21.5.2008 and fixed the case for defendants' evidence. After completion of defendant's evidence, the case was fixed for final arguments. At the stage of final arguments, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) and Order 18 Rule 17 readwith Section 151 CPC, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order, the plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the fact that as soon as the petitioner received the documents, which he wanted to place on record, he gave the same to his earlier counsel but his earlier counsel could not place the same on record, which fact came to his knowledge after engaging another counsel and thereafter he moved an application for taking documents on record without any further delay. Learned counsel also submits that the documents i.e. affidavit of Prahlad executed on 11.3.2008, the will executed on 8.5.2009 and photographs of the property in dispute annexed with the application, are relevant documents and have important bearing on the matter in issue and prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order and allow the application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner for taking documents on record and to give opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence.