Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 656 (RAJ)

LR’s of late Nathu v. Sita Ram

2013-04-02

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the defendants No. 1 LR's of Nathu Luhar and defendant No'2 Uday Lal against the Plaintiff Sita Ram aggrieved by the order dated 8.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 134/2007-Sita Rain v. LR's of Nathu Juhar disposing of the application dated 6.9.2002 filed by the defendants raising his objection about two of the documents produced by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance in which during the course of trial, the plaintiff did not press his relief for specific performance by way of transfer of property and restricted the relief about the refund of money allegedly paid to the defendants under the said agreement. 2. Previously the said application was filed by the defendants vide Annexure- 3 dated 10.7.2008 in which the defendants raised these objections about admissibility of documents with respect to two documents Exs.-2 and 3 one was documents exhibited showing receipt of money and other was purported agreement of sale against which admissibility objection was raised by the defendants in the application dated 10.7.2008. The said application came to be disposed of by the learned trial Court on 8.12.2008 and since the documents in question were not on record, at that time, the question of admissibility was not decided. Subsequently, the defendants upon production of these documents, the defendants again filed an application on 26.2.2009 raising the objection that since these were neither registered document nor adequately stamped, therefore, the same were not admissible in evidence. This application dated 26.6.2009 came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court by order dated 8.11.2011 (Annexure-9) by which the learned trial Court while disposing of the said application dated 26.2.2009 held that the document with respect to payment of money was on the stamp paper of Rs. 10/- and therefore, with respect to refund of money only claimed by the plaintiff in the amended suit filed by him, the same was admissible in evidence. 3. The grievance raised by the defendant in the present writ petition is that the learned trial Court has not dealt with other document at all in the impugned order dated 8.11.2011 and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand Mr. 3. The grievance raised by the defendant in the present writ petition is that the learned trial Court has not dealt with other document at all in the impugned order dated 8.11.2011 and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand Mr. S.L. Sukhwal, the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiff urged that the application dated 26.2.2009 was a separate application which has been rightly disposed of by the impugned order and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 5. On a perusal of the application dated 26.2.2009 in the record summoned from the learned trial Court, it appears that the same has been made in continuation of the previous application filed by the defendants on 10.7.2008 on which order was passed by the learned trial Court on 8.12.2008 not deciding the objection, therefore, the subsequent application dated 26.2.2009 filed by the defendants merely requesting the learned trial Court to decide the objections with regard to these documents as already raised in the previous application dated 10.7.2008 cannot be said to be an independent or different application for a different purpose. 6. From the impugned order dated 8.11.2011, it is obvious that the learned trial Court has discussed only one document and has found the same admissible document while not pronouncing upon about the admissibility of another document at all, which appears to be a bonafide lapse on the part of the learned trial Court. In the interest of justice, the learned trial Court, therefore, deserves to be requested to decide objection of the defendants about other documents as well. 7. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of and the learned trial Court is requested to decide the question of admissibility of other document also within a period of one month from today. The record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the learned Court below forthwith.Petition Dismissed. *******