Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1876 (RAJ)

Madhu Tak v. ADJ (FT) No. 5, Udaipur .

2008-08-07

VINEET KOTHARI

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.5.2008 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application of the defendant No.2 under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) Civil Procedure Code. seeking leave of the Court to produce the document i.e. written statement filed by the defendant No.2 Gopi Lal in another suit in which, according to the said defendant - Madhu Tak, a contradictory stand was taken by the defendant - Gopilal before the Court in similar suit for cancellation of the sale deed filed by his son Puna Lal i.e. Civil Suit No.64/2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sajjan Singh submits that this has seriously prejudiced the case of the defendant No.2 and the said written statement filed earlier in that suit ought to have been allowed to be produced by the court below under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of Civil Procedure Code. 4. He further submits that the defendant is ready to pay reasonable cost for such belated production of said document. 5. This prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Manish Shishodia on the ground that the said written statement was within the knowledge of the said defendant and he could have produced the same at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses and cross-examination of defendant's witness Gopi Lal. 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the defendant No.2 can be allowed even at this stage to produce that written statement in evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiffs. 7. In view of this, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.5.2008 is set aside, however, the defendant No.2, the present petitioner Smt. Madhu shall produce the said document i.e. written statement filed by Gopi Lal in Civil Suit No.64/2006 before the trial court on the next date which is said to be fixed on tomorrow i.e. 8.8.2008 subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. For the other documents, which are sought to be produced by the petitioner, this petition is treated as dismissed and the application to that extent under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) is also rejected. The said application is allowed only to the extent of aforesaid written statement. 8. Copy of this order may be made available to the learned counsel for the parties today.Petition Allowed. *******