Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1030 (RAJ)

Parbat Singh v. Hem Singh

2013-05-17

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner while challenging the order dated 30.4.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Balotra, District Barmer (hereinafter referred to 'the trial court') whereby the application preferred on behalf of Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram under Order 16 Rule 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred a suit for permanent injunction and declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 18.12.2006 executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of disputed plot may be cancelled and declared as void and for restraining the respondents No.1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in relation to the plot in question. In response to the said suit filed by the petitioner, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent defendants No.1 and 2. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial court on 13.10.2009 and list of witnesses has also been submitted by the parties on 27.10.2009. During the pendency of the suit, on 4.4.2013, two persons i.e. Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram preferred an application under Order 16 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and has contended that their plot is situated adjoining to the disputed plot which was acquired by them through sale deed and gift deed and they want to give evidence in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and also want to produce some documents in evidence. The said application is contested by the respondent defendants on the ground that in the list of witnesses submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff on 27.10.2009, name of Rupa Ram was not shown as witness and, therefore, his statement cannot be recorded and no document can be taken on record at the instance of Rupa Ram. 3. On 30.4.2013, the learned trial court after hearing the parties decided the application dated 4.4.2013 preferred on behalf of Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram while holding that though the applicants can be produced as witnesses but no document can be taken on record at their instances and the prayer of the applicants to this extent was rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2013, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2013, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the provisions of Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C., the trial court is duty bound to allow the witnesses to produce their documents on record and the trial court cannot refuse to take the documents on record produced by any such witness. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has grossly erred in refusing to give permission to the witnesses namely Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram to produce documents on record while allowing them to depose as witnesses in the case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the order dated 30.4.2013 passed by the learned trial court to the extent of rejecting the application, preferred on behalf of Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram of not allowing them to produce documents on record be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Narsi Reddy & Ors. v. Rami Reddy Gopaiah & Ors.,. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and also perused the impugned order passed by learned trial court. 9. While passing the order dated 30.4.2013, the learned trial court has observed that on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the issues have been framed on 13.10.2009 and the plaintiff has to prove his possession and residence over the plot in question by producing evidence and for proving these facts, the petitioner can record statements of any witness but at this stage no documents can be taken on record on behalf of the said witnesses. While observing this, the learned trial court has allowed the applicants Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram to depose as witnesses, however, the request for taking certain documents on record on their behalf have been denied. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in not taking any documents on record produced on behalf of Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram while allowing them to depose as witnesses in the suit. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in not taking any documents on record produced on behalf of Narpat Singh and Rupa Ram while allowing them to depose as witnesses in the suit. It is always open for the plaintiff or his witnesses to produce the relevant documents in support of their evidence at the time of recording of their statements and before that stage the learned trial court is not bound to take on record any document on behalf of any witness. The judgment rendered in Narsi Reddy's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case because in the present case the stage of recording the evidence of the plaintiff as well as his witness have not been reached and prior to that the learned trial court has refused to take documents on record on their behalf. 11. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 30.4.2013. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as having no force.Petition Dismissed. *******