Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1308 (RAJ)

Avinash Shrimali v. Yashoda Devi

2015-07-15

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 CPC has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit and in Para 2 of the plaint, it was claimed that the last paid rent was Rs.1500/-. The said aspect was disputed by the petitioner-defendant. Evidence was led by the plaintiff and when the turn of the petitioner-defendant came to lead evidence, an application was filed seeking production of receipts for payment at the rate of Rs.1500/-. 3. The application was opposed by the plaintiff orally and it was indicated that the receipts, if any, were with the defendants and the plaintiff does not have any receipt. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the case has been set up by the plaintiff and in case the documents are not produced, the defendants cannot force the plaintiff to produce the documents. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed error in dismissing the application, inasmuch as, the documents were material for the decision of the suit and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. 7. A bare look at the plaint indicates that the plaintiff has claimed last paid rent at Rs.1500/- and the burden, therefore, lies on the plaintiff for proving the same, once the plaintiff has not produced the receipts/counter foil of the receipts of last paid rent, there is apparently no occasion for the petitioners defendants to seek production of the said documents. The trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the production of such documents in the facts and circumstances of the case were not required. 8. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.