Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Singh Tak vs Bhanwar Lal Tak & Ors on 5 January, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2622 / 2012
Mohan Singh Tak Son of Shri Chotu Ram Ji Tak, by Caste Mali, Age
about 59 years, Resident of 11/157, Chopasni Housing Board,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bhanwar Lal Tak Son of Shri Babu Ram Ji, J.E.N. P.H.E.D.
Deedwana Distt. Nagaur.
2. Hari Prakash Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Tak, Resident of
Mohandas Bass, Deedwana Distt. Nagaru.
3. Bhagirath Son of Shri Bhanwarlal Tak, Resident of Mohandas
Bass, Deedwana Distt. Nagaur.
----Non-Petitioners
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MK Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. LK Purohit, AGC
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order 05/01/2017
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 27.02.2012 by which the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for taking a letter dated 08.03.2004 on record.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-plaintiff in his plaint, has mentioned about, writing a letter to the defendant on 08.03.2004 the original of which was (2 of 3) [CW-2622/2012] with the defendant, the petitioner only wanted the photo-copy to be taken on record. The court below has committed an error in rejecting his application as the genuineness of the document was not to be seen at that stage.
4. It is also contended that the defendant-respondent can be compensated by cost and would be entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff-petitioner at the relevant time. It is also contended that the court below has erred in going into the merits of the document.
5. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition. His contention is that the suit was filed in 2005 and the issues were framed in 2006 the petitioner earlier moved an application for taking on record certain document which was allowed by the court. The second application was also moved and certain documents were again taken on record. The present letter being a photo-copy is not a document in eye of law and there is no reason forthcoming as to why the same was not filed with the plaint. It is contended that the court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner.
6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
7. In the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, it has been mentioned that when the petitioner was preparing for producing evidence, it came to his notice that the letter has not been filed though it has been referred to in the pleadings.
8. It is borne out that the petitioner-plaintiff submitted his affidavit way back in 2006 and at that time moved an application for taking on record 57 documents which was allowed, thereafter (3 of 3) [CW-2622/2012] in 2010 also the court permitted documents to be taken on record. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that this fact came to his notice when he was preparing to produce document is therefore not having any force.
9. Even otherwise of photo-copy document cannot be permitted to be taken on record and the court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.
10. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. The stay petition also stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J. sudheer