AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23th May, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD) Magistrate No.3, Kota (hereinafter referred as the "trial court"), whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner-defendant filed under Order VIII of CPC. The short facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner-defendant in the trial court, on various grounds as enumerated in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order viii read with Section 151 of CPC imploring the court to take certain documents on record. The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that these documents were not related to the pleadings of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction by way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents which are relevant to the suit can be filed under order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC even at the later stage, but with the leave of the court. The learned trial court has wrongly observed that the said documents were not related to the suit, hence, the impugned order being contrary to law deserves to be set aside. He has cited the decision of Kalu Ram & ors. versus om Prakash & Anr. reported in 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj) 875, in support thereof.
However, the learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order and submitted the same being just and proper did not warrant any intervention.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant on the ground that the documents were the photo-stat copies of the original documents and were not related to the facts of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner also could not explain as to how these documents were relevant for the purpose of defense. Having perused the written statement of the petitioner, it is further revealed that there is not even a whisper of the said documents in the said written statement. Merely that the documents can be taken on record with the leave of the court, it does not mean that any document filed at the belated stage must be taken on record and the leave must be granted by the court. so far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the facts of the case of Kalu Ram (supra) are altogether distinct. This High Court, in that case categorically observed that the documents had an nexus with the report lodged with the police and they were relevant for the just decision of the suit. The facts of the case on hand are altogether distinct. The petitioner-defendant neither made any whisper of these documents in his written statement nor made any mention of these documents in any list of documents. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the said documents are relevant and have got bearing with the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant. The impugned order rendered by the learned trial court is found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not warrant any interference. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.