Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 627 (HP)

Punnu v. Darshan Kumar

2019-05-27

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. (Oral) - The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 4.5.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Amb, District Una. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ''plaintiffs'') has maintained a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ''defendants'') from interfering in any manner, cutting and removing the standing trees and making any type of construction over the suit land measuring 0-30-94 hectares, bearing Khewat No.290, Khatauni No.551, Khasra No.2139, 2140, 2141, situated at Up Mohal Kailash Nagar, Village Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, District Una. As per the petitioners, they have moved an application, under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to place on record the copy of order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, in order to show that the correction of revenue entries passed by the orders of the Settlement Officer, has attained finality. The defendants preferred Appeal No.191 of 2002, against the orders of Settlement Officer has been dismissed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide order dated 10.1.2017. The petitioners further averred that while deciding the application, under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Court below has not appreciated the real controversy and relevancy of document and came to a wrong conclusion by rejecting/dismissing the application of the petitioners on the ground that the case is very old and targeted, it will take much time to dispose of the present case, in case, the application is to be allowed and it will cause unnecessary delay in deciding the present case. Hence, the present petition. 3. Heard. 4. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court finds that the plaintiffs-petitioners by way of application, under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to place on record the copy of order dated 10.1.2017, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. 3. Heard. 4. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court finds that the plaintiffs-petitioners by way of application, under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to place on record the copy of order dated 10.1.2017, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. The learned Court below while dismissing the application has held that the decision in the appeal is admitted by the defendants, so application is not required to be allowed to place on record the copy of order dated 10.1.2017, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. This Court finds that in a Civil Suit, if the parties want to place on record some documents and the other party admits its interest to bring on record the same, the same is definitely necessary to be brought on record to meet the ends of justice. However, if the parties want to place on record the document for adjudicating the matter, the learned Court below should allow the prayer of plaintiffs to place on record the document. In these circumstances, copy of order dated 10.1.2017, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, in case No.191/2002, titled Laxmi vs. Ramel Singh, seems relevant with respect to the nature of lis and the issue is to be decided by the learned Court below. The other party admits the documents, is mere reason that the same should have been placed on record, as it would have definitely help the learned Court below in disposing of the disputes. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the learned Court below may allow the applicants-plaintiffs to place on record the copy of order, dated 10.1.2017, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, in case No.191/2002, titled Laxmi vs. Ramel Singh, and thereafter, the case be decided, in accordance with law. Petitioners through their learned counsel is directed to appear before the learned Court below on 20th June, 2019. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.