AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 333 wordsThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 18.10.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar {herein after 'the trial court'} whereby the application submitted by the respondent-plaintiffs under Order 7 rule 14 CPC was allowed.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of Will against the petitioner-defendant. After completion of evidence of the plaintiffs as well as defendants, the respondent-plaintiffs filed an application for taking on record a judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh dated 26.08.2013. Trial court allowed the said application vide order dated 18.10.2013. Hence present writ petition has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the suit in the year 2007 and the judgment, which the respondent-plaintiffs want to file on record relates to the year 2013. Counsel further submitted that the application has been filed after evidence of the parties to further delay disposal of the suit as the proceedings are at final stage. The leaned counsel prayed for setting aside the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the learned trial court.
Counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial court and submitted that the judgment dated 26.08.2013 was delivered by the concerned court after completion of evidence of the plaintiff-respondents, hence, the learned trial court has rightly allowed their application field under Order 7 rule 14 CPC.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the reason that by allowing application filed by the respondent-plaintiffs while taking on record certified copy of the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-defendant. Secondly, the trial court has given an opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine the respondent-plaintiffs with regard to the document which has been taken on record.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
