Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1511 (RAJ)

Mohd. Irshad v. Civil Judge

2010-08-19

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT : R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dholpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 10(A) Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.2, Satya Prakash, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent before the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Dholpur against defendant, Natthu Khan, the father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, and the husband of petitioner No.4. During the pendency of the suit, Natthu died and his legal representatives, the petitioners were taken on record. In the suit it was pleaded that defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff. The defendant paid the rent from May, 1996 to December, 1996 at the rate of Rs. 30/- through money order. The defendant did not pay the rent after December, 1996. The defendant filed written statement and denied the contents of the suit and submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of Civil Procedure Code for sending the money order for specific investigation. The plaintiff filed reply to the above application and denied the contents of it. The learned Civil Judge (SD) Dholpur, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, vide its order dated 05.03.2010, rejected the application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that since the petitioners have denied the genuineness of the receipt and other documents submitted by the plaintiff-respondent, the Court should have invoked its power under Order 26 Rule 10(A) Civil Procedure Code. Secondly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reasons for dismissing the said application. 4. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the civil suit was filed for eviction in the year 2000. Even since then, the petitioners have maintained studied silence about the genuineness of the document. Secondly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reasons for dismissing the said application. 4. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the civil suit was filed for eviction in the year 2000. Even since then, the petitioners have maintained studied silence about the genuineness of the document. After the lapse of more than a decade, the petitioners have filed the said application which clearly shows that the intention of the petitioners behind the filing of the said application is merely to delay the trial. Therefore, the impugned order is valid one. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain to this Court as to what prevented the petitioners from filing the said application under Order 26 Rule 10(A) immediately after they had filed their written statement. Although he claims in the written statement itself that they had questioned the genuineness of the documents, their silence for a decade becomes more enigmatic. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in holding that the application under Order 26 Rule 10(A) has been filed with intention to merely prolong the proceedings. 6. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity and illegality in the impugned order. Thus, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is hereby, dismissed. Petition dismissed.