Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2174 (RAJ)

Arjun Lal v. Pappu Lal @ Ramprasad

2018-10-31

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Under challenge is the order dated 19.11.2012 by which the trial court has dismissed the petitioner-plaintiff's application (hereinafter 'plaintiff') under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC filed in his suit inter alia for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 16.03.2004 executed purportedly on his behalf by registered power attorney holder subsequent to the cancellation thereof, as per the plaintiff's case on 09.03.2004. Also challenged inter alia and by an amendment to the plaint in the suit is the subsequent registered sale deeds dated 18.11.2006 qua the suit property in favour of the defendant No.4 during the pendency of his suit. 2. The trial court has dismissed the application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC on the ground that the plaintiff had the opportunity to exhibit the documents on its record at the time of his evidence but failed to so do which lacunae could not be rectified by resort to the provision in issue. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. It is an admitted fact that the document/s which the plaintiff seeks to exhibit by recalling himself as a witness are already on record of the trial court. No doubt ordinarily Order 18, Rule 17 CPC should not be resorted to facilitate rectification of an error and removal of lacunae in the course of the trial. The case at hand however is one of a nearly illiterate agriculturist pitted now against a developer who purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The failure to exhibit the documents already on record is clearly attributable to the plaintiff's counsel. To allow the plaintiff to suffer consequences of his counsel's mistake would entail manifest injustice to him. And in any event the mere exhibiting of document/s will not be a determination of the issue in the suit for cancellation of the sale-deeds and the trial court will have to take into consideration the probative worth of such documents amongst other evidences before it. 5. In this view of the matter, in the special facts of the case where a nearly illiterate agriculturist is pitted against a developer to whom the suit property has come by way of a sale-deed subsequent to the laying of the suit, I would be inclined to allow this petition. 6. Resultantly, the order dated 19.11.2012 is quashed and set aside. The application of the plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC is allowed. 6. Resultantly, the order dated 19.11.2012 is quashed and set aside. The application of the plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC is allowed. The plaintiff shall enter the witness box for the purpose of exhibiting the documents already on record of the trial court within 7 days of the next date fixed before the trial court. He shall be allowed only one opportunity for the purpose. 7. As the suit relates to the year 2005 as was amended in 2008, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of 6 months from the plaintiff entering the witness box pursuant to his application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC being allowed to prove document/s already on trial court's record. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed.