Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2525 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar Chashta v. Geeta Devi

2019-09-18

ABHAY CHATURVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT Abhay Chaturvedi, J. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure-7) passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh whereby, the trial Court has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC for taking certain documents on record. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for partition of property belonging to late Shri Labh Shankar Chashta, the father of the petitioner. It was averred in the plaint that the property mentioned in para No.3 of the plaint belonged to late Shri Labh Shankar Chasta. The petitioner being the son of late Shri Labh Shankar Chasta is thus entitled to 1/5th share in the property. 3. Owing to the facts and averments made in the plaint, the respondents filed their written statement. The respondent No.4 Chirag, respondent No.7 Lokesh Kumar admitted the averments made in the plaint. However, respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6 disputed the facts contained in the plaint and averred that the property did not belong to Late Shri Labh Shankar Chashta. They further averred that the disputed property being jointly purchased by Late Shri Labh Shankar Chashta and Late Shri Rakesh Chandra Chashta in the name of Late Shri Labh Shankar Chashta. On the basis of the facts above mentioned, the Court framed issues vide dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure-5) and thereafter, the case was posted for taking of evidence. On 30.10.2018, petitioner submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC for taking five documents on record which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh vide impugned order dated 15.12.2018 (Annexure-7). Hence, this writ petition was filed. 4. Heard counsel for the parties. 5. A perusal of the material placed on record shows that the petitioner sought permission to take documents on record which are No.1 Nakal Naksha trace Aabadi Kapasan Khas, No.2 Nakal Bill AVVNL, No.3 Nakal Jamabandi Araji No. 5702 Moja Kapasan, No.4 Certificate issued by DTO regarding Vehicle No.RJ 09 SD 5556 and Form No.24 issued by DTO regarding Vehicle No. RJ 09 SV 2552. 6. So far as, document No.1 Nakal Naksha trace Aabadi Kapasan Khas is concerned, the relevancy of document is doubtful with regard to the dispute between the parties. So far the Jamabandi Samvat 2074-2077 is concerned, name of Labh Shankar Chashta S/o Jagannath is mentioned as Khatedar. 6. So far as, document No.1 Nakal Naksha trace Aabadi Kapasan Khas is concerned, the relevancy of document is doubtful with regard to the dispute between the parties. So far the Jamabandi Samvat 2074-2077 is concerned, name of Labh Shankar Chashta S/o Jagannath is mentioned as Khatedar. Likewise Vehicle No. RJ09 SD 5556 is registered in the name of Late Shri Labh Shankar Chashta. Form No.24 is also in the name of Late Shri Labh Shankar Chashta regarding vehicle No. RJ09 SV 2552. Therefore, these documents are in the name of late Shri Labh Shankar Chashta for whose properties the suit for partition is being filed by the plaintiff. 7. In view of the above, the documents S.Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 mentioned in para No.2 of the application dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-6) filed by the petitioner are taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4000/- to be paid to the respondents. The prayer for taking the document mentioned at S.No.1 in the application on record is rejected. However, admissibility of the documents shall be decided by the trial Court at the time of evidence of the parties. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. The impugned order dated 15.12.2018 (Annexure-7) is set aside. 9. Nothing observed herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.