Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2126 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal Nai v. Om Prakash Mali

2018-10-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. By way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 7.7.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sardarshahar in Civil Original Suit No. 40/2011 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. 2. The suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioners in the court below with the allegation that the respondents had procured a forged patta for a plot adjoining a residential plot of the petitioners on Samvat 1022 Miti Asoj Sudi 15 and that fictitious sale transactions had been undertaken on the strength of the forged patta. The respondents defendants appeared before the trial court and opposed the submissions of the petitioners and rather claimed that the patta procured by the petitioners plaintiffs is forged. After receiving the written statement of the respondents, the petitioners filed the subject application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. requesting the Court to direct the respondents to produce the original patta in the court. The respondents filed a pertinent reply to the application stating that the sale deed was executed in favour of Jaichand Lal by the original owner of the subject land and a photostat copy of the patta was provided to the purchaser and that the original patta is not available with them. The trial court after considering this reply of the respondents, proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners by order dated 7.7.2018 which is assailed by the petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri Salil Trivedi and Shri Prashant Tatia Advocates representing the petitioners and have gone through the impugned order and the other material available on record. 4. Primarily, this Court is satisfied that since the suit was filed by the petitioners plaintiffs with the allegation that the patta of the respondents is forged; burden to prove this fact would obviously lie upon the plaintiffs and they can by no means, be permitted to shift this burden on to the respondents defendants. The respondents defendants categorically stated in their reply that the original patta was not available with them. The respondents defendants categorically stated in their reply that the original patta was not available with them. In this background, there was no occasion for the trial court to have directed the respondents defendants to submit the original patta in the court. The prayer made by the petitioners in the application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was totally misconceived and the same was rightly dismissed by the trial court by order dated 7.7.2018, which ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or error apparent on the face of record whatsoever warranting interference therein in the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Hence, the writ petition as well as stay application are dismissed summarily as being devoid of merit.