Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 276 (RAJ)

Sanjay Kumar Jetha v. Kailash Chand Nama

2020-01-29

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for placing on record certain documents, has been rejected. 2. A petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was filed by the respondent No.l, seeking probate of a Will said to have been executed by Bheru Lal in his favour. 3. The petitioner resisted the said petition. 4. An application dated 27.02.2018 was filed for placing on record certain documents, the application was resisted by the respondent No.l. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the issues were framed on 02.12.2013, the evidence of the respondent No.l was over and thereafter, the same was fixed for evidence of the petitioner and thereafter, the present application has been filed for placing on record certain documents. 6. The court also came to the conclusion that qua the documents sought to be produced, as the evidence of the respondent No.l was over, the respondent No. l would not get any opportunity qua the said documents to led evidence and consequently rejected the application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that rejection of the application is not justified, inasmuch as, the same has been filed at the stage of petitioner's evidence and that the documents were relevant for just disposal of the case. 8. Submissions have also been made that the respondent No.l would get opportunity in rebuttal to contest the said documents and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. A bare look at the application (Annex. 4) filed by the petitioner reveals that not a word has been indicated in the application for explaining the delay in producing the documents. 11. The provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1A CPC provides that the documents have to be produced alongwith the written statement and in case, any further documents are required to be relied on, they can be taken on record with the permission of the Court. 11. The provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1A CPC provides that the documents have to be produced alongwith the written statement and in case, any further documents are required to be relied on, they can be taken on record with the permission of the Court. The permission can be granted by the Court only on fulfilling certain parameters, which includes explanation on part of the petitioner as to why the documents could not be filed alongwith the written statement. 12. In the present case, the proceedings are pending since 2012 and the documents, which are sought to be produced pertain to a period prior to filing of the proceedings by the respondent No.l and no explanation, whatsoever, has been indicated in the application as to why the documents could not be produced alongwith the written statement and therefore, on the said count alone, the application was liable to be dismissed. 13. The trial court besides the said aspect, on other grounds also i.e. on the ground of delay as well as the fact that the applicant before the trial court would not get opportunity to contest the same, has rejected the application. The rejection of the application for the reasons noticed herein-before, cannot be faulted. 14. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the present writ petition is made out. The same is, therefore, dismissed.