Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1166 (JHR)

Ajanta Sarkar @ Anju Sarkar v. Union of India

2012-08-06

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.04.2012 (Annexure-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1), Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 100 of 2003, whereby the petition filed by the defendant no. 4 under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was ordered to be allowed and thereby the documents were ordered to be taken on record. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents-Union of India. 3. Perused the material on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below has not properly considered the provision contained in Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the court below has not properly exercised the discretion vested in it under the aforesaid provision. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the defendant no. 4 has produced these documents without giving any explanation for filing such documents at a belated stage merely with a view to delay the proceedings and therefore, the application ought to have been rejected by the court below. Moreover, it is submitted that the said documents have no relevance at the subject matter of the suit. 5. Considering the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the court below by the impugned order, has allowed the documents submitted by the defendant no. 4 to be taken on record by imposing a cost of Rs.100/- and the plaintiff is also given liberty to file the documents. On perusal of the provision contained in Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it appears that the court below has exercised its discretion judiciously and in the interest of justice and this Court is of the view that the court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the said order. The said order is passed after proper consideration of provision of law as well as facts of the application and therefore, intervention of this Court is not required. 6. Accordingly, this petition is rejected. 7. The said order is passed after proper consideration of provision of law as well as facts of the application and therefore, intervention of this Court is not required. 6. Accordingly, this petition is rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given opportunity to move appropriate application for amendment of the plaint as well as for adducing further oral evidence in respect of this document, if required. 8. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clarified that the petitioner will be at liberty to move before the court below by filing appropriate application for amendment as well as for adducing further oral evidence in respect of this document, if required. As and when such application is moved, the court below shall consider and decide the same on its own merit. Petition rejected.