Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1212 (RAJ)

Manoj v. Nanda

2013-07-08

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 18.10.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara, whereby the learned District Judge has rejected the applications preferred by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC for bringing certain documents on record. In both the writ petitions, common question is involved and, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order, while taking the facts from2 SBCWP No. 9696/2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 3 preferred a suit under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 for compensation on account of death of Smt. Rukma due to electric shock on 04.08.2006. In the said suit, the petitioner was impleaded as defendant as Smt. Rukma died on account of electric shock while working in the house of the petitioner, which was under construction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 CPC and requested the Court for calling certain original documents from co-defendants No. 1 to 3, but the said application was rejected by the court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 8, Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC for bringing the documents on record such as construction permission and map issued by the Gram Panchayat, Kotadi, representation given by the petitioner and other villagers, letter written by Tehsildar and amount deposited by the petitioner as demanded by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short ' the AVVNL' hereinafter). The learned trial court has rejected the said application while holding that earlier an3 application for summoning the original documents from defendants No. 1 to 3 preferred by the petitioner was rejected and, therefore, in view of the said rejection, it is not proper to take the documents on record as requested by the petitioner and proceeded to reject the said application vide order dated 18.10.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents sought to be produced on record by the petitioner are pertaining to the representations made by the petitioner and other villagers requesting the AVVNL for removal of the line passing over the under constructed house of the petitioner and, therefore, those documents are very much relevant for the purpose of fixing the liability of the defaulter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if those documents are not taken on record, the petitioner will not be able to defend his case and the claimants will not get the just compensation. 4. Dr. Pratishtha Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-respondents No. 1 to 3 has stated that the claimants have no objection if the documents produced by the petitioner, along with the application under Order 8, Rule 1 and 3 CPC, are taken on record. However, Mr Ashok Chhangani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of AVVNL has argued that the evidence of the plaintiffs has already been completed and, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to produce certain documents on record particularly when the earlier application preferred by the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 14 CPC has already been rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The documents sought to be produced on record by the petitioner are the representations submitted by the petitioner and other persons to the AVVNL for removal of high tension line passing over the under constructed house of the petitioner. The petitioner also wants to produce certain letters issued by the Tehsildar concerned for removal of the high tension line passing over the house of the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that if the said documents are brought on record, none of the parties will be prejudiced as the evidence of the defendants has not yet been started. 7. In view of the above, the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner are allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.10.2008, so far they relate to the dismissal of the applications of the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 3 CPC are concerned, are set aside and the applications preferred by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC are allowed. The trial court is directed to take on record the documents produced by the petitioner along with the said applications and decide the suits preferred by the plaintiffs expeditiously. 8. In view of the above, the interim stay orders passed by this Court on 05.12.2008 in both the writ petitions, staying the further proceedings in Case No. 138/2006 and 137/2006 pending before the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bhilwara came to an end and the Stay Petition Nos. 8. In view of the above, the interim stay orders passed by this Court on 05.12.2008 in both the writ petitions, staying the further proceedings in Case No. 138/2006 and 137/2006 pending before the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bhilwara came to an end and the Stay Petition Nos. 16645/2008 and 16646/2008 also disposed of and the trial court is directed to proceed further as per above `directions given by this Court. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court.Petition Allowed. *******