Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 518 (RAJ)

Deceased Kasam Bhai v. Deceased Abdul Razzak

2021-03-02

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the second stay petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter may be heard on its merit today itself, as the proceedings of the Trial Court have been stayed. 3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.12.2016, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court')- 4. The present petitioner's father, Kasam Bhai, had instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the shop against the defendant. 5. The suit was initially decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.1994 and appeal there against was decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Bali, District Pali, vide judgment dated 18.11.1998 and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court. 6. The judgment aforesaid, passed by the learned Appellate Court, has been affirmed by this Court vide its judgment dated 06.08.2015. 7. During the remand proceedings, the defendant moved amendment application, which was allowed by the Trial Court. Consequently, the defendant changed his stand and took a specific plea that the shop in question was sold by the original plaintiff to the defendant, vide registered sale-deed dated 31.03.1958. 8. It is to be noted that initially the following issues were framed:- 9. Thereafter, in light of the amendment in the pleadings on 21.09.2016, following issues came to be framed by the Trial Court:- 10. Such being the position, the present petitioner preferred an application dated 05.10.2016 under Order VII Ruler 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought leave of the Court to produce certain documents on record to show that the contentious sale-deed dated 31.03.1958 is fraudulent and the signatures made on such document, were not that of Kasam Bhai (the plaintiff). 11. The respondents filed reply to the said application and opposed petitioner's prayer of taking these documents on record inter alia contending that they have already placed various documents, which show that the signatures on the contentious sale-deed are that of Kasam Bhai. 12. The Trial Court has dismissed the aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code, inter alia observing that the matter is at the stage of evidence and if additional documents are taken on record, it will lead to further complication. 13. 12. The Trial Court has dismissed the aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code, inter alia observing that the matter is at the stage of evidence and if additional documents are taken on record, it will lead to further complication. 13. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the order impugned dated 07.12.2016, argued that the Court below has erred in rejecting petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code. It was submitted that in view of the changed stand taken by the respondents, particularly because they have relied upon a sale-deed dated 31.03.1958, two issues were framed on 21.09.2016, out of which burden to prove issueNo.2 that "vk;k fodz; foys[k fookfnr nqdku QthZ ,oa dwVjfpr gS?" was fixed upon the plaintiff-petitioner, hence, unless documents admittedly signed by Kasam Bhai are there on record, neither the petitioner-plaintiff can properly prove issue No.2 nor can the issue No.1 be adjudicated properly. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Bhadu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, argued that the defendants-respondents have already placed two documents on record, as mentioned in para No.7 of the reply and hence, both the issues can be easily determined by the Trial Court considering the documents already on record. 15. Heard. 16. Consequent to framing of the new issues on 21.09.2016, new issues are to be adjudicated by the Trial Court particularly, as to whether purported sale-deed dated 31.03.1958 is forged or not. Such being the position, the petitioner was justified in filing the application dated 05.10.2016 immediately upon framing of the additional issues. 17. There was no occasion for the petitioner to have placed these documents on record and the occasion or cause to place these documents on record had arisen only after amendment of the issues. 18. In the opinion of this Court, the Trial Court has not examined the issues in its entirety and has rejected petitioner's application cursorily, simply observing that the same would lead to more complications. 19. Indisputably, when the application was filed, the suit was at the stage of evidence. Therefore, if the documents were taken on record, it would serve the cause of justice, rather than being an impediment in the adjudication of the case. 20. The order of the Trial Court is, therefore, contrary to law as well as facts involved in the present case, apart from being unreasoned. 21. Therefore, if the documents were taken on record, it would serve the cause of justice, rather than being an impediment in the adjudication of the case. 20. The order of the Trial Court is, therefore, contrary to law as well as facts involved in the present case, apart from being unreasoned. 21. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed; impugned order dated 07.12.2016 is set aside; petitioner's application dated 05.10.2016 is allowed. 22. The documents filed along with the said application shall form part of the record of the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. 23. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. 24. Needless to observe that merely because subject documents have been ordered to be taken on record, it shall not come in the way of the Trial Court to decide their genuineness and admissibility. The same shall be considered and decided as and when occasion arises.