Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1988 (RAJ)

LAKHPAT CHAND LOONKAR v. RAMESH

2017-09-06

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby two applications dated 19.05.2014 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, first being the application filed under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) for taking the replication/rejoinder on record, and another under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code for taking certain documents on record, has been decided. 2. The facts, in nutshell, relevant for deciding the present writ petition are that the petitioner, being plaintiff, filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts. During the proceedings of the suit, petitioner filed aforesaid two applications, one for taking the replication/rejoinder on record and another, on the same date, for producing certain documents on record. Both the applications came to be decided by the Court below, vide its order dated 25.03.2015. 3. The learned Trial Court allowed the application under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code and permitted the petitioner-plaintiff to place on record replication/rejoinder, whereas the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code has been partly allowed and some of the documents, mentioned in the application at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 have been refused to be taken on record. 4. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the order impugned passed by the Court below is per-se illegal, non-speaking and contrary to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1(A)(3) of the Code and principles governing it. He submitted that the Trial Court has seriously erred in rejecting petitioner's prayer for taking Document Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the one hand, the learned Court below has permitted the petitioner to bring on record the facts and requisite pleadings in relation to all the documents by taking the replication/rejoinder on record, whereas the documents in respect of the very same pleadings have been refused to be taken on record. While inviting the attention of this Court towards the list of documents, mentioned in the application, Mr. While inviting the attention of this Court towards the list of documents, mentioned in the application, Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that these documents are bank statements and copies of the cheque(s), of the Bank accounts held by the father and mother of the plaintiff and defendants. According to him, the account statement and the cheque (s) are relevant, rather necessary for the decision of the suit for partition and rendition of accounts and all the documents, including the documents, which have been rejected, ought to have been taken on record. 5. Mr. Anirudh Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the documents, sought to be produced by the plaintiff-petitioner on record, have been obtained under Right to Information Act and the same could not be permitted to be led in evidence. 6. Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A simple look at the order impugned shows that the Trial Court has passed the order in a slip-shot manner and neither, while allowing the application under Order 8, Rule 9 nor at the time of partly rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code, has assigned any reason. 8. While deciding and more particularly, in the event of rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code, the Trial Court is required to assign cogent reasons for such refusal. Order, in the manner passed as herein, cannot be countenanced and approved. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. 9. Instead of remanding the matter, this Court has heard the contentions of the parties on the application dated 19.05.2014. On perusal of the application and looking to the nature of suit and the documents submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff, this Court is of the considered opinion that the copies of the bank statements and the cheque(s) etc. relating to the Bank accounts of the father and mother of the parties are necessary and relevant for deciding the suit for partition and rendition of accounts. These documents will definitely help the Trial Court to at least arrive at the Balance in the Bank accounts and other assets held by the parties common ancestors. relating to the Bank accounts of the father and mother of the parties are necessary and relevant for deciding the suit for partition and rendition of accounts. These documents will definitely help the Trial Court to at least arrive at the Balance in the Bank accounts and other assets held by the parties common ancestors. More particularly, as the suit is for rendition of accounts also, and keeping into consideration of the plaintiff in para No. 3 ">" and prayer made in this regard, the documents relating to Bank Accounts, particulars whereof have been given in the plaint appear to be essential. 10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The application dated 19.05.2014 under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed in toto. 11. As far as the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in relation to the admissibility of the documents, having been obtained under the Right to Information Act, is concerned, suffice it to observe that the said objection shall be permitted to be raised by the defendants at the time of leading evidence and exhibiting the same. Such objection, as and when raised, shall be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the instant order. 12. Petition allowed as indicated above.