Jagdish Chandra vs Gram Panchayat Jhanwar and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.7.2009 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 8 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed in which a prayer was made by the petitioner for directing the respondents to produce the documents regarding suit property on record.

I have perused the impugned order dated 30.7.2009. It appears from the facts of the case that a suit was filed by the petitioner on the basis of a patta which is said to be issued in his favor. The petitioner in the suit specifically stated that he has not made any encroachment, more so, he is in possession of the land in question on the basis of the patta issued in his favor. However, in reply, the respondent - Gram Panchayat has specifically stated that the land in question upon which the construction has been made by the petitioner is encroachment. The case of the petitioner is that while filing an application under Order 13 Rule 8 read with Section 151 C.P.C., he has prayed that the record of Gram Panchayat may be summoned and the Gram Panchayat Jhanwar may be directed to produce on record the relevant record of the land in question which is related to the urban land.

Learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 30.7.2009 has specifically observed that the petitioner is claiming his right on the basis of the patta which is said to be the patta of disputed land and to prove this fact the burden of proof is upon the petitioner himself and if any contrary contention is raised in defense by the respondents then it is required to be proved by the respondents. The petitioner cannot raise any objection or to make any prayer that the respondents shall produce on record the relevant record for which they took defense in their reply. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the trial Court while dismissing the application filed under Order 13 Rule 8 CPC because the petitioner being plaintiff is required to prove his case because burden of proof lies upon his shoulders. The facts and grounds taken in the written statement in defense are required to be proved by the respondents. The petitioner - plaintiff cannot be permitted to make such prayer which is not relevant for the purpose of proving his own case.

In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.