Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ganesh @ Lokesh & Anr vs The Petitioners on 16 May, 2014
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Ganesh @ Lokesh & Anr. v. Murti Shri Chaturbhuj Nath Ji Maharaj & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.5391/2014) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2014 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIV.), KOTA NORTH WHEREBY THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER 8, RULE 3(1) CPC HAS BEEN DISMISSED Date of Judgment :: 16/05/2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Sailesh Prakash Sharma, for the petitioners.
The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) North, Kota whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 8, Rule 3(1) CPC for bringing on record certain documents.
It is the case of the petitioners that during examination of Om Prakash as the petitioners' witness, he produced certain documents which clearly show that the temple in dispute also belong to idol of Madangopal Ji. Since these documents were relevant to the controversy involved, the petitioners filed an application under Order 8, Rule 3(1) CPC. However, by impugned order dated 1.3.2014 the learned Magistrate has rejected the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.
Mr. Sailesh Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the application. For, according to the respondent-plaintiffs, their case was that the entire temple premises belong to a one particular deity, whereas the case of the petitioners is that it belongs to two different deities and Madangopal Ji is represented by the petitioners. Thus, these documents were relevant in order to decide the controversy in issue. Hence, the application under Order 8 Rule 3(1) should have been allowed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.
A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the suit was for permanent injunction and not a suit where the title of the temple is involved. However, the documents which are basically testimonies of few persons deal with the title of the temple. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, the documents are not relevant for resolving the dispute in controversy.
Moreover, the learned Magistrate has also noticed that although the petitioners claim that these documents were produced by Om Prakash during the course of his testimony, but the fact remains that the documents produced by the petitioners alongwith their application are the documents which they got from Devasthan Department. Such documents naturally would have been available to the petitioners at the time of filing of written statement as these documents are public documents. No explanation has been given by the petitioner for not submitting these documents at the time of filing of written statement. One of the principles governing submission of documents is that the party has to be diligent enough for procuring the documents. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the petitioners have been diligent enough to procure these documents at the time of filing of written statement.
Thus, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN)J. GS All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Govind Sharma, Sr. PA