Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishan Lal vs Ajit Pal Singh & Ors on 21 July, 2008
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
CW -1919/2008 - KishanLal Vs. Shri Ajit Pal Singh & Ors. Order dt.21.7.08
1/2
S.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.1919/2008
KishanLal Vs. Shri Ajit Pal Singh & Ors.
Date of order : 21st July, 2008
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. S.L. Jain for the petitioner.
Mr. G.J. Gupta for the respondents.
---------
1. Heard learned counsel.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.3.2008 passed by the learned trial court whereby the learned trial court rejected the affidavit of the plaintiff filed on 26.2.2008 wherein the plaintiff marked the exhibit of the documents already filed along with its affidavit dated 30.1.2008 including the affidavit of Advocate Jagdish Rai and Commissioner Advocate Shri Pankaj Sharma. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in para 10 of the affidavit dated 30.1.2008 these two documents were already mentioned, however, the exhibit could not be marked and a blank was left after these exhibits and by subsequent affidavit dt.26.2.2008 the plaintiff-petitioner prayed for marking these documents as Exhibit 9 and 10 respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the trial Court has rejected the said subsequent affidavit on the ground that the plaintiff could not be allowed to change his version once the affidavit earlier filed was taken on record and subsequent affidavit filed on 26.2.2008 was placed in part D of the file, hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant, however, CW -1919/2008 - KishanLal Vs. Shri Ajit Pal Singh & Ors. Order dt.21.7.08 2/2 submits that since the documents in question were not already produced with earlier affidavit dated 30.1.2008, therefore, the plaintiff could not be allowed to file the subsequent affidavit dated 26.2.2008.
5. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the learned trial court has not stated anything about the factum of filing of these documents subsequently on 26.2.2008 whereas the said subsequent affidavit dated 26.2.2008 merely seeks to mark the document already filed along with the earlier affidavit dated 30.1.2008 as Exhibits 9 and 10 respectively as they were not marked earlier as such. The observations of the learned trial court that plaintiff could not be allowed to change his version in the subsequent affidavit is thus uncalled for.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.3.2008 is quashed and set aside.
[ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.
item No.120 babulal/-