Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1624 (RAJ)

Savitri Devi v. The State of Rajasthan

2008-07-04

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Admit. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard in the case and the writ petition is being disposed of finally. 3. The plaintiff - petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the trial court in respect of disputed property against the defendants, wherein the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC for production of certain documents which was contested by defendants no. 2 and 3 by filing their separate reply. The trial court dismissed the said application vide order dated 11th October, 2007 which is under challenge in this writ petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that earlier a similar application was filed by the plaintiff which was dismissed and thereafter a writ petition was also preferred before this Court but the same was also dismissed. The another ground given by the trial court is that there is inordinate delay in filing the application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier the application of plaintiff was dismissed on the basis of statement given by defendants to the effect that the documents sought to be produced itself are not in existence. The writ petition which was preferred before this Court was dismissed on the basis of above referred statement of the defendants by observing that when documents itself are not in existence then the copy thereof cannot be allowed to be placed on record. This Court decided the writ petition on the basis of judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Pratap v. Narsingh - 1990 (1) RLR page 339. He further contended that statement given by learned counsel for the defendants in the trial court was incorrect as the certified copy of the same documents have now been supplied to the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act. So far as delay in filing the application is concerned, he contended that the relevant files were not traceable or the defendants informed that the same are not available. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same be dismissed. 6. So far as delay in filing the application is concerned, he contended that the relevant files were not traceable or the defendants informed that the same are not available. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment dated 11th October, 2007 passed by the trial court. The trial court has dismissed the application on the ground that earlier a similar application moved on behalf of the plaintiff was dismissed and further that there is delay on the part of the plaintiff to move the present application. So far as first reason assigned by the trial court is concerned, I am of the view that the trial court committed an illegality in not taking into consideration the conduct of defendants who gave false statement before the trial court to the effect that the documents itself are not in existence and in these circumstances this could not have been a ground for rejecting the present application. Earlier the certified copies of the documents were not produced alongwith the application and another application was moved to allow the plaintiff to produce the secondary evidence in respect of these documents, whereas now the certified copy of the same documents have been made available, which have been filed alongwith the application, therefore, the earlier order passed by the trial court and upheld by this Court should not have been made a basis for rejecting the application. The learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed that the certified copy of the documents have now been supplied to the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act. So far as delay in producing the document is concerned, the plaintiff has explained the delay by stating that earlier the relevant documents were not available or the documents were not supplied to the plaintiff. He had only photostat copy of the documents which were placed on the record but the same were not taken on record on the ground that they are only photostat copies and further that counsel for the defendant stated in the trial court that the documents itself are not in existence. He had only photostat copy of the documents which were placed on the record but the same were not taken on record on the ground that they are only photostat copies and further that counsel for the defendant stated in the trial court that the documents itself are not in existence. In these circumstances, I find that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff and the same is liable to be allowed. Whatever certified copies of the documents which have been placed on record by the plaintiff - petitioner will be taken on record. If the certified copy of any document has not been placed on record, then the same may not be taken on record. 7. In view of above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11th October, 2007 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC is allowed. The certified copies of the documents placed on record alongwith the application are ordered to be taken on record. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******