SHRIYA MEENA Vs. GIRRAJ PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 23.1.16 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.4, Alwar in Civil Suit No.34/81/08, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner- defendant for taking documents on record stands rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plot in respect whereof plaintiff is claiming right falls within khasra no.1513 in respect of which, the U.I.T., Alwar had prepared the layout plan and pattas of the plots were issued in favour of the allottees. It is submitted that the lay out plan as also the pattas issued by the UIT are documents relevant to the lis between the parties and therefore, if the same are not taken on record, it will result in failure of justice. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this court rendered in "Smt. Sangeeta vs. Ramesh Chand" (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.6639/05, decided on 27.9.13), "Shabbir Hussain & Anr. vs. The Additional Civil Judge & Anr." (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.11907/11, decided on 12.9.11) and " Kumar Hardayal Singh vs. Murti Mandir Shri Balaji through Lrs." (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.459/05, decided on 12.12.11).

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the applicant has not explained any relevancy of the documents in the application. It is submitted that petitioner's claim is confined to plot no.23 ad measuring 45x40 sq. ft. situated in Rajnagar Colony, Jaipur Road and the layout plan sought to be produced on behalf of the petitioner-defendant has no relevancy whatsoever to the lis between the parties. It is submitted that in the pending suit after conclusion of the arguments of the parties, final arguments were heard and at this stage, the petitioner has filed application for taking documents on record without any plausible explanation for not producing the documents at the appropriate stage and thus, the prayer has rightly been rejected by the learned trial court.