Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1652 (RAJ)

Mohd. Rafiq v. Jaitoon

2017-07-25

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
ORDER : DINESH MEHTA, J. I.A. No. 2746 of 2017. 1. The present application has been filed by the respondent No. 1, a senior citizen seeking early disposal of the present writ petition, as she is suffering on account of prolonged pendency of the present writ petition and the litigation in the learned Trial Court. 2. The application is allowed and with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for consideration today itself. 3. Facts requisite for the disposal of the present writ petition are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 37.83 lacs alleging inte alia that out of the amount of acquisition compensation received, by the defendant, half of it belongs to the them. 4. On the other hand, the stand of the petitioners/defendants in the said suit has been that the land in question was not ancestral land and the same was own Khatedari land of their father. 5. During the course of the defendants' evidence, the petitioner's moved an application dated 19.09.2016 under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of the Code of the Civil Procedure, seeking leave to produce receipts of payment of land revenue (Lagan receipt), evincing payment of the revenue made by their father, since 15.04.19972. The learned Trial court however rejected the said application filed by the petitioners, inter alia holding that they are not relevant and have been filed, only with the view to protract the proceedings. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 7. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties, particularly the stand of the petitioners that the land in question was their own Khatedari land, the receipts of payment of land revenue are relevant documents and the learned Trial Court should have allowed the application, instead of rejecting the same on the conduct of the petitioners, who according to the Court below were interested in delaying proceedings. The order impugned passed by the Court below cannot be countenanced in the facts of the present case, in as much as an application cannot be rejected by the Court under the impression that the party intends to prolong the case, without going into the essence and requirement of the document sought to be placed by the parties. 8. The order impugned passed by the Court below cannot be countenanced in the facts of the present case, in as much as an application cannot be rejected by the Court under the impression that the party intends to prolong the case, without going into the essence and requirement of the document sought to be placed by the parties. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed, the order impugned dated 09.11.2016 is quashed and set aside. The documents filed by the petitioners along with application dated 19.09.2016 under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) shall be taken on record. 9. Needless to observe that any observation made consciously or otherwise, by this Court regarding relevance of the document shall not influence the decision of the learned Trial Court, while deciding the suit finally. 10. In the facts of the present case, since the plaintiff-Smt. Jetoon is senior citizen, this Court deems it appropriate to issue direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. 11. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.