SAJJAN SINGH Vs. SHRI BHANWARLAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. While the proceedings were going on and after filing of written statement by the defendants, the petitioner moved an application under Order 16 Rule 14 and Order 18 Rule 4, 17 and Section 151 CPC stating therein that the defendants in their written statement have said that they have got no business under Hindu Undivided Family with Shri Kanhiya Lal, who is uncle of petitioner nor they have any dispute. Although, they are having some dispute in respect of Suit No. 327/2004 pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotri and in that Kanahiya Lal accepted that they are having business under Hindu Undivided Family in the name of Bhanwarlal Umrao Singh, therefore, the suit and written statement is to be taken on record and the same should be exhibited. Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the earlier applications preferred by them under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC were relevant and, therefore, were rightly accepted by the learned court below. The applications preferred by the petitioner were dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the documents were necessary for adjudication and those ought to have been taken on record.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent pointed out that on 16.11.2013 evidence of plaintiff was closed but re-opened on cost subsequently. He has further pointed out that on 02.7.2014 counsel for the plaintiff made it clear that they do not wish to bring any more evidence and thereafter the evidence of defendants begin. Furthermore, on 13.1.2015 the plaintiff moved an application and stated that the record of documents now sought to be taken on record were not required and that may be returned to the plaintiff. The learned court below has already passed an order on 02.7.2014 whereby the document since not exhibited and were not required in the suit in-question were returned to the plaintiff-petitioner on his application.