CHHOTI MEHTA Vs. AWADH KISHOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by orders dated 03.02.2014 and 05.04.2014, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, initially the petitioners/plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 45 of 1997 in the Court of Munsif, Koderma in which the plaint was returned on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Subsequently, the petitioners plaintiffs filed Title Suit no. 05 of 2001 in which the application dated 23.07.2011 was filed calling for the record of Title Suit No. 45 of 1997 taking a plea that in the present suit the defendants have filed a 'Hukumnama' in support of their case which is different from the 'Hukumnama' filed in the earlier proceeding in Title Suit No. 45 of 1997. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2014 and a review application was filed on the ground that though four applications were heard and decided vide order dated 03.02.2014, the application dated 05.09.2011 was not heard and decided by the learned Court. The review application was also dismissed and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the earlier proceeding though the defendants appeared and filed 'Hukumnama' in support of their case however, since the plaint was returned the said document was not marked and exhibited therefore, copy of the same was not given to the plaintiffs. During the trial of the Title Suit No. 05 of 2001 when the evidence was led, a specific question with respect to 'Hukumnama' filed in earlier proceeding that is Title Suit No. 45 of 1997 was put to the witness who denied the existence of a different 'Hukumnama' filed in Title Suit No. 45 of 1997 and therefore, it necessitated filing of the application dated 23.07.2011 calling for the record of Title Suit No. 45 of 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Order XIII Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and submitted that even the Court at its own motion or on the application filed by a party to the suit, can call for the record of another case pending in another Court. In the present proceeding on the basis of a forged and fabricated 'Hukumnama' the defendants are trying to dispute the claim of the plaintiffs and therefore, it was necessary for the ends of justice to call for the record of Title Suit no. 45 of 1997 which would conclusively establish that the claim raised by the defendants is based on a forged 'Hukumnama'. It is further submitted that the photo copy of two 'Hukumnamas' which are in possession of the plaintiffs would demonstrate that both are two different 'Hukumnamas' and therefore, to ascertain the veracity of the 'Hukumnama' filed by the defendants in Title Suit no. 05 of 2001, the record of Title Suit no. 45 of 1997 should have called for by the learned Trial Court.