Mangilal vs Nathu Lal And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant no.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') against the order dated 14.3.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 41/2004, whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') and denied to mark exhibit on the documents obtained under Right to Information Act.

Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction. Summons were issued. The defendant put in appearance. During the pendency of the suit, defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC for taking additional documents on record obtained by him under RTI Act, which was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 1.12.2018. The plaintiffs filed an application raising objection to mark exhibit on the documents obtained by the defendant under RTI Act as they did not bear any signatures thereon. The defendant filed a reply thereto. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 14.3.2019 allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that it is well settled law that once the document is taken on record, then the Court cannot reverse its own order and the documents ought to have been exhibited. He further submits that if the plaintiffs were aggrieved of the order dated 1.12.2018, whereby the documents were taken on record, they ought to have filed an appeal against the same. He further submits that every page of the documents obtained under RTI Act bore the seal of the Nagar Nigam. He further submits that if the plaintiffs have any objection with regard to marking exhibit on the documents, said objection of the plaintiffs would be decided at the time of final adjudication of the suit.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the documents submitted by the defendant have been obtained by him under Right to Information Act. He further submits that on 18.1.2018, witness Mangi Lal was examined and documents were exhibited. The plaintiffs raised the objection that the said documents being obtained under RTI Act, exhibit could not be marked on them, whereupon vide order dated 7.4.2018 the Trial Court passed the order and the documents Ex. A/1 to A/3 and A/5 to A/18 were declared inadmissible in evidence. Since no appeal was filed thereagainst, as such the said order dated 7.4.2018 attained finality. In this view of the matter, documents obtained under RTI Act could not have been exhibited.

Heard. Considered.

It is admitted fact that the documents produced by the defendant have been obtained by him under Right to Information Act. It is also an admitted fact that earlier the objection raised by the plaintiffs with regard to marking exhibit on the documents obtained by the defendant under RTI Act was decided by the Trial Court vide its order dated 7.4.2018 and the documents Ex.-A/1 to A/3, A/5 to A/18 were declared inadmissible in evidence. Since no appeal was filed against the order dated 7.4.2018, the said order attained finality. In this view of the matter, documents subsequently obtained under Right to Information Act were held inadmissible by the Trial Court and no exhibit could have been marked thereon.

I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court in its order dated 14.3.2019.

There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petition fails and the same is dismissed.