Shanti Devi vs Gyatri Upadhayay and Others

Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that she produced some documents before the learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 213 of 1995 for getting the said documents exhibited but the learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua refused her prayer on the ground of delay in production of the above stated documents. Admittedly, when the said documents were produced in Title suit No. 213 of 1995, the evidence of petitioner, who happens to be the defendant in the aforesaid suit, was going on and the learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua refused to exhibit the documents in question only on the ground of delay.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that two public documents were produced by the petitioner before the learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 213 of 1995 and as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not aware about the aforesaid documents prior to filing of the said documents before the concerned court but the learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua failed to take notice of this fact was noted that the above stated documents were public documents and the evidence of petitioner was going on.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently, refuted the above stated submissions pointing out that the Title Suit No. 213 of 1995 was filed in the year 1995 and the petitioner was aware about the documents in question much prior to filing of the above stated documents, but she did not file the said documents before the court below in time and later on, she filed the said documents before the court below with an intent to delay the disposal of the case. It is also pointed out on behalf of the respondents that now the evidences as well as arguments of both the parties have already been closed and due to stay order passed by this Court in this writ petition on 3.2.2011 the court below could not pronounce the judgment.

A report has been called for from the court of learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in respect of present status of Title Suit No. 213 of 1995 but a vague report has been submitted by learned learned Sub-Judge II, Kaimur at Bhabhua mentioning only this fact that the aforesaid Title suit No. 213 of 1995 has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2011. The learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua did not mention this fact as to what was the stage when the above stated Title Suit No. 213 of 1995 was stayed by this Court. Moreover, in my view, if the documents produced by the petitioner before the learned learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 213 of 1995 is exhibited in evidence, the same will not cause any prejudice to the respondents because after that the respondents will get an opportunity to rebut the above stated documents.

Accordingly, the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 213 of 1995 is, hereby, set aside with direction to the learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua to take the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner in evidence in accordance with law and after taking the aforesaid documents in evidence, the learned Sub-Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua shall give an opportunity to the respondents to rebut the above stated documents and, thereafter, dispose of the above stated suit within a reasonable time preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. In the aforesaid manner, this writ petition stands disposed of.