Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2080 (RAJ)

Bajrang Lal v. Shanti Devi

2017-09-18

DINESH MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. Mr. Jain appears for respondent No. 2, the sole contesting respondent. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the case and at the request of the rival counsels, service upon other un-served respondents is dispensed with. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred, impugning the order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), whereby the application dated 21.03.2017 preferred by the respondent No. 2-defendant No. 3 before the Trial Court has been allowed. 3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-Smt. Shanti Devi had filed a suit for partition. During the course of the proceedings, the defendant No. 3-Babulal preferred an application under Order 8, Rule 1 (3) [sic Order 8, Rule 1 A (3)] read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to place certain documents on record, which were claimed to be necessary to controvert the version of defendants No. 1 and 2. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu vide order dated 18.07.2017 with the following observations:- ^^mDr izkFkZuk i= dh udy odhy oknh dks fnyk;h xbZ Fkh] ftldk mudh vkSj ls dksbZ tokc is'k ugha fd;k x;kA i=koyh vHkh lk{; izfroknh ds izØe ij gS rFkk izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk izkFkhZ@oknh ckcwyky }kjk tks nLrkost Qgfj'r ds lkFk izLrqr fd;s x;s gS] muds voyksdu ls izFke n`"V~;k gh ;g nLrkostkr i{kdkjku ds e/; yafcr fookn ds fuiVkjs ds fy, vge o lqlaxr nLrkost izrhr gksrs gSa] ftUgsa fjdkMZ ij fy;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@oknh ckcwyky dh vkSj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= varxZr vkns'k 8 fu;e 13 o /kkjk 151 lhŒihŒlhŒ Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk Qgfj'r ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostkr dks fjdkMZ ij fy;s tkus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA i=koyh okLrs lk{; izfroknh@ftjg fnukad 25-07-2017 dks is'k gksA** 4. Mr. Arvind Samdariya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset pointed out that neither the copy of the said application nor the documents were supplied to the petitioner (defendant No. 1) or his counsel and the same has been allowed by the Trial Court, without even considering the stand of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Arvind Samdariya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset pointed out that neither the copy of the said application nor the documents were supplied to the petitioner (defendant No. 1) or his counsel and the same has been allowed by the Trial Court, without even considering the stand of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel pointing out that it had been a specific case of defendant No. 3 that the documents in question were necessary for controverting the stand of defendants No. 1 and 2, argued that the said application could not have been decided by the Trial Court, without hearing the petitioner or considering his objection regarding the same. 6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the order dated 18.07.2017 submitted that the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy by way of filing a review and that the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 3) had filed a counter claim before the Trial Court, for which no written statement has been filed by the petitioner and hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.07.2017 is half hearted attempt and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. A bare look at the application dated 21.03.2017 filed by the defendant No. 3-respondent No. 2 reveals that the documents in question, for which leave had been sought, relate to the petitioner. The defendants No. 1 and 2 admittedly had not provided/supplied copy of the application and the documents to the petitioner, who was the concerned party. It is strange that the Trial Court has allowed the said application and taken the documents on record, without hearing the petitioner against whom these documents were sought to be used. 9. The order dated 18.07.2017 impugned in the present writ petition thus suffers from manifest error of law and irregularity in procedure. For the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 18.07.2017 is quashed and set aside. 10. The respondent No. 2-defendant No. 3 is directed to supply a copy of the application along with document therewith to the petitioner or his counsel. The Trial Court will hear the respective parties upon the said application on 06.10.2017. The petitioner may file response/reply to such application on or before such date. 11. 10. The respondent No. 2-defendant No. 3 is directed to supply a copy of the application along with document therewith to the petitioner or his counsel. The Trial Court will hear the respective parties upon the said application on 06.10.2017. The petitioner may file response/reply to such application on or before such date. 11. Needless to observe that if the petitioner-(defendants No. 1 and 2) deems it necessary to lead evidence in relation to the documents, if they are ultimately taken on record by the Trial Court, they shall be free to move appropriate application for leading their evidence or recalling of their witness and the Trial court decide the same in accordance with law. 12. With these observations writ petition stands allowed.