Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 975 (ALL)

VINOD KUMAR BAJAJ (SINCE DECEASED) v. RAJENDRI

2018-04-19

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.4.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Ghaziabad, and the order dated 22.1.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Court No. 4. 2. The facts of the case are that a suit being Suit No. 332 of 1996, with a prayer that the property in question be not squandered by the defendants No. 1 and 2 over which there was a possession of the plaintiff, was filed.The case of the plaintiff was that after certain plots of land of his were acquired, as per the State Policy, plot No. A-43 on site No. 4 Sahibabad was allotted in the name of Samarth land Industrial Corporation and, therefore, also favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 who were its partners. 3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and stated that the allegations made in the plaint were wrong and that, in fact, as per documents dated 7.10.1976 and 23.7.1976, 7.9.1976, 29.7.1976, 27.5.1983 and 13.5.1993 the firm in whose ownership the plots had allegedly been allotted had been dissolved and a fresh firm had come into existence. Therefore, as per the written statement, it was submitted by the defendants that the plot was never allotted in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs moved an application on 12.4.2017 for summoning the record of plot No. A-43 and A-43/1 in order to ascertain as to whom the plot was actually allotted. The Additional Civil Judge on 13.4.2017, rejected the application saying that the question as to whether there was a wrong allotment was not involved in the case and he further observed that randomly evidence could not be allowed to be collected by the Court. The Revisional Court, further observed that the document which the petitioner/plaintiff desired to get was a public document and was available to him all these years and that he could have got the same through the Right to Information(RTI). The Courts below were of the view that the plaintiff was only delaying the disposal of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two orders could not be sustained. The Courts below were of the view that the plaintiff was only delaying the disposal of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two orders could not be sustained. He has submitted that under Order XI Rule 14 of the C.P.C. a Court could summon any document at any time which it found was essential for the decision of the case. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that when a document was called for by a Court it did not mean that it would be a document which would be admitted in evidence and would be taken to be a correct document. In fact, he submitted that it would be put to proof and as per Section 163 of the Evidence Act would be required to be proved. The importance of the document could be adjudged only after it was summoned and put in evidence. He, therefore, submits that there was no harm if the document which he prayed for was summoned. Further, he argued that the Courts had to arrive at a finding whether the document was essential for the decision of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1996. Ever since 1996, the parties to the suit had indulged in various litigation. The fact that the plaintiff was moving the application in 2017 was a clear indication of the fact that he wanted only to delay matters. Further, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned counsel for the UPSIDC, Sri S.K. Mishra who had put in appearance submitted that this Court may not interfere with the findings arrived at by the two Courts under Article 227. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the definite view that under Order XI Rule 14 when a document is summoned the Court can immediately proceed with the suit after dealing with it. Summoning of it would not mean that the Court had relied upon it or had admitted it as evidence. It is definitely lamentable that the plaintiff after all these years had moved the application so late in the day. The case, for one reason or the other has lingered for more than 22 years. Summoning of it would not mean that the Court had relied upon it or had admitted it as evidence. It is definitely lamentable that the plaintiff after all these years had moved the application so late in the day. The case, for one reason or the other has lingered for more than 22 years. However, only because the summoning of the documents has now been prayed for at this late stage, the Court cannot say that the document would now not be summoned. 9. A perusal of the orders definitely indicates that the Courts were mainly guided by the fact that the case had become very old and the application should not have been filed so late in the day. 10. The observation of the Court that the documents were public documents, and, therefore the plaintiff could have obtained the copies under the RTI also does not hold much water. In fact, had the Courts summoned the document at the very outset, then a lot of time would have been saved and the suit in all probability would have been decided a year back. 11. Under such circumstances, the order dated 22.1.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Court No. 4, Ghaziabad and the order dated 13.4.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Ghaziabad are quashed. The document as had been asked for by the petitioner would be summoned by the Courts below and the suit shall be decided within a period of three month by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghaziabad from the production of a certified copy of this order. 12. So far as the maintainability of the petition under Article 227 is concerned, suffice it to say that since a pure question of law has been dealt with about the scope of Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C., the petition under under Article 227 was definitely maintainable. 13. The writ petition is allowed.