Narinder Singh, S/o Late Nandu Ram Singh vs Smt. Tara Devi, W/o Late Surinder Singh

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is defendant No.1 in Original [Partition] Suit No.127/2013 and is aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure-5) under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC whereby and whereunder leave to file the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.04.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of his wife/defendant No.2 has been rejected.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in para-8 of the written statement, it has been specifically pleaded that the suit property was partitioned and on the basis of the said partition, the petitioner had sold 1/3rd share in favour of his wife. Written statement, the sale-deed was a relevant document.

It is argued by learned counsel for the Opp. Party(s) that the said Suit is of the year, 2013 and the case is posted for argument for the last one year and at the stage of argument and at the fag end of trial and for delaying the case, the instant CMP has been filed.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, law is settled that under Order VIII Rule-1(A) CPC may be allowed by the Court when the party seeking such leave to demonstrate sufficient cause for omission to bring on record a particular document at the time of filing of the written statement.

However, the document which the petitioner seeks to bring into evidence at this stage was under-challenge and was in possession of the defendant. Despite this, no step was taken for the last 13 years to bring it on record. Further, it is a partition suit and the short question for consideration before the trial Court inter alia, will be whether the landed property transferred by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 was joint family property or not. This will depend upon the fact whether it was ancestral property or self acquired property of Defendant No.1. Factum of sale executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of his wife will have no direct bearing on the issue of jointness of the property.

Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, as there is no justification in bringing on record 11 years after the filing of suit.

The instant CMP stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.