AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 366 wordsSanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission.
Order dated 21.4.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 48 A/2013 by Third Civil Judge Class I, Sidhi, is being assailed vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Order 13 Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the defendants has been partly allowed.
Suit by the petitioner is for declaration of title and permanent injunction. During pendency whereof the defendants filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Order 13 Rule 4 CPC seeking leave for taking certain documents being the certified copy of revenue record, on record. Trial Court took on record documents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 and rejected the application in respect of documents No. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and further granted leave to defendants to exhibit the documents under Order 13 Rule 4 CPC.
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A of order 8 stipulates that "a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf a the hearing of the suit". Apparently there is no bar to admit the documents even when the hearing has commenced if in the discretion of the Trial Court the same are relevant and germane to issue raised.
Rule 4 of Order 13 CPC makes out a provision for endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. In the case at hand, since the Trial Court has exercised the discretion in respect of document Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 being relevant and germane to the issue involved and having so permitted the defendants to file the documents, further granted them the leave to endorse the same. The leave so granted when is tested on the basis of issue involved in the matter, the Trial Court was well within its jurisdiction in partly allowing the application as would warrant an interference in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently the petition fails and is dismissed.