DWARIKA SONAR Vs. BINDWA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by orders dated 14.9.2011 and 30.11.2011/1.12.2011 in Title Suit No. 4 of 2008, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 4 of 2008 was filed in which the petitioners filed a written statement on 24.8.1989, specifically asserting that on 23.4.1989 a Panchayati was held between the parties. However, since the original document, i.e. the Panchayati dated 23.4.1989 was in possession of the plaintiff, the same could not be brought on record by the defendants and therefore, an application dated 15.7.2011 was filed seeking permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence by bringing on record the photocopy of Panchayati dated 23.4.1989. A rejoinder to the application dated 15.7.2011 was filed by the plaintiffs specifically denying the Panchayati organised between the parties on 23.4.1989. In such a situation, the petitioners filed an application dated 4.8.2011 for directing the plaintiffs to produce original of the Panchayati dated 23.4.1989. Both the applications were heard by the learned trial court and dismissed vide orders dated 14.9.2011 and 30.11.2011/1.12.2011. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that since the plaintiffs' own witness namely, Kishundhari Sonar (P.W. 3) stated in his Examination-in-Chief that a Panchayati was held between the parties and in his cross-examination also he has admitted that on 23.4.1989 a Panchayati was held between the parties in which it was decided that each party would get 1/7th share in the suit property, the defendants' application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by producing photocopy of the Panchayati dated 23.4.1989 could not have been dismissed by the learned trial court.

(2.) Per contra, Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that though the suit was filed in the year, 2008 and a written statement was filed way back on 30.4.2008 however, only at the fag end, i.e., at the time of final arguments the defendants filed an application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence which has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 30.11.2011/1.12.2011. It is further submitted that since the plaintiffs have specifically denied existence of Panchayati allegedly held on 23.4.1989, the application dated 4.8.2011 for directing the plaintiffs to produce the original of the Panchayati dated 23.4.1989 could not have been allowed and has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial court. It is thus submitted that only to delay the final decision in the trial suit and to deny the plaintiffs their legitimate claim in the suit property, the defendants have filed the applications dated 15.7.2011 and 4.8.2011 which have rightly been dismissed by the learned trial court.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.