Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2521 (RAJ)

Danaram v. The Civil Judge (Sr. Div. ), Churu

2005-09-20

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, N.N.MATHUR

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the learned Single Judge. 2. The special appeal cannot be entertained in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court. However, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that interference is required by this Court in view of grave injustice done to the appellant. The learned Counsel has persuaded us to look into the matter in the interest of justice. 3. This is plaintiff s special appeal in a rent suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Churu. It is averred that alongwith the suit a copy of the rent note was filed without an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. According to the plaintiff the rent note was in possession of the defendant. It appears that the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the trial Court by order dated 10.04.2001 to complete the trial within a period of one year. It further appears that an application was also filed for the production of the rent note from the possession of the defendant. The said application was rejected by the order of the trial Court dated 02.04.2002. The plaintiff appellant preferred a revision against the said order, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 03.07.2002.with liberty to file fresh application before the trial Court under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. Accordingly the plaintiff appellant filed an application before the trial Court under the aforesaid provision, which was again rejected by order dated 12.03.2003. The appellant preferred a revision against the said order. The learned Single Judge by order dated 04.04.2003 while issuing the notices stayed the further proceedings before the trial Court. However, before the order could be communicated, the trial Court on the same day i.e., 04.04.2003 closed the evidence. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 010.2003 in view of the amended provisions of CPC. However, a liberty was given to challenge the order dated 12.03.2003 by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition was filed, wherein a stay was granted by order dated 011.2003. However, the writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.08.2005. However, a liberty was given to challenge the order dated 12.03.2003 by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition was filed, wherein a stay was granted by order dated 011.2003. However, the writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.08.2005. It appears that inspite of the fact that the plaintiff has approached to the High Court thrice the fact remains that the crucial original document i.e., rent note has not been produced. At a later stage the defendant had admitted possession of the original document. However, the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed irrespective of the fact that further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. In these circumstances we are in agreement with the learned Counsel that injustice has been done to the appellant. A small interference by the learned Single Judge could have made the trial straight. The question of delaying the trial also does not arise as in a rent control matter the plaintiff is not benefited by delay. However, we cannot interfere, as the instant special appeal cannot be entertained in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench in Ramesh Chand Tiwari vs. Board of Revenue reported in 2005 (4) RDD page 615. For the convenience we may extract the conclusion of the Full Bench summed up in Para 29 as follows:- “Any person desiring to prefer Intra-Court appeal from the Judgment order of the Single Judge, may present the same before the Division Bench but if the Division Bench finds that the Judgment order of the Single Judge was rendered purely in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Intra-Court appeal shall stand dismissed as not maintainable. Judgment s orders passed by the Single Judge in exercise of wider supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 are amenable to Intra-Court appeals.” 4. In view of the aforesaid, the special appeal stands dismissed.