Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1886 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal Pungalia v. Abdul Aziz

2002-11-26

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants against the respondents-plaintiffs against order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 323/1995 by which the application u/O. 11 Rr. 12 & 14 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was allowed be quashed and set aside. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : (i) That the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit on 5.5.1986 against the petitioners-defendants for cancellation of agreement dated 30.9.1979 and in that suit a written statement was filed by the present petitioners-defendants on 3.7.1989 by which execution of agreement dated 30.9.1979 was denied and it was further contended by the petitioners-defendants that agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff No. 1-Abdul Aziz and defendants No. 1 & 2 (petitioners) on 12.5.1980. (ii) In that suit issues were framed and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of respondents-plaintiffs. The respondents-plaintiffs filed an application u/O. 11 Rr. 12 & 14 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for production of counterfoil of the cheque No. AD 159751 by which payment of Rs. 25,900/- was made as per agreement dated 12.5.1980. (iii) That the petitioners-defendants filed reply to the above application and stated that the production of cheque No. AD 159751 and its counter-foil was not necessary as the plaintiffs- respondents had filed the suit for cancellation of agreement dated 30.9.1979 and not agreement dated 12.5.1980 for which payment of Rs. 25,000/- was made. Hence, application should be dismissed. 3. That the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents vide order dated 30.4.2001 inter alia holding that : The counter-foil of Cheque No. AD 159751 was related to the present dispute and therefore, the trial Court ordered the petitioners-defendants to produce that counter-foil of cheque No. AD 159751. 4. Aggrieved from the order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur this revision petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners. 5. In this revision petition it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court has not assigned any reason as to how these documents were relevant. 4. Aggrieved from the order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur this revision petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners. 5. In this revision petition it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court has not assigned any reason as to how these documents were relevant. It has been further submitted that when the agreement dated 12.5.1980 is not under challenge and agreement dated 30.9.1979 is under challenge, therefore, if any payment was made in pursuance of execution of agreement dated 12.5.1980, it would have no bearing on the present suit and, therefore, the application should have been rejected. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has sup- ported the order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur and submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court in passing the order dated 30.4.2001 and hence, no interference is called for in the order dated 30.4.2001. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In my opinion, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed because of reasons mentioned hereinafter. 9. There is no dispute on the point that the respondents- plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of agreement dated 30.9.1979 and in that suit reply of present petitioners- defendants was that no agreement was executed on 30.9.1979 between the parties, but the agreement was executed between the plaintiff No. 1 (Abdul Aziz) and defendants No. 1 & 2 (petitioners) on 12.5.1980. There is also no dispute that the earlier revision petition filed by the present petitioners was allowed and the prayer for amendment in the suit was refused. 10. The dispute between the parties is whether the agreement dated 30.9.1979 was executed or not as alleged by the respondents- plaintiffs or agreement dated 12.5.1980 was executed between the parties as put forward by the petitioners-defendants or not. Since payment of Rs. 25,000/- was made with respect to agreement dated 12.5.1980, therefore, in these circumstances, through order dated 30.4.2001, if the counter-foil of cheque No. AD 159751 by which Rs. 25,000/- were paid by the present petitioners- defendants, was ordered to be produced in the Court, the order dated 30.4.2001 cannot be said to be suffering from basic illegality or infirmity justifying interference by this Court. 11. 25,000/- were paid by the present petitioners- defendants, was ordered to be produced in the Court, the order dated 30.4.2001 cannot be said to be suffering from basic illegality or infirmity justifying interference by this Court. 11. Apart from this, it may be stated here that Section 115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters; (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegality, that is, in breach of some provisions of law or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied on those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate Courts on questions of fact or law. 12. It is also true that discretionary orders passed by the trial Court should not be lightly interfered with. 13. Apart from this u/O. 11 Rr. 12 & 14 CPC, documents relating to controversy in question involved in the said suit can be ordered to be produced in the Court Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) No. 5, Jodhpur does not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity and thus does not require any interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 CPC and this revision petition deserves to be dismissed.For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition is dismissed.Cost made easy.Revision Petition Dismissed. *******