Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Babulal Son Of Shri Gheesaram Lakhera vs Hajarilal Son Of Late Shri Gheesaram ... on 9 October, 2018
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22526/2018)
Babulal son of Shri Gheesaram Lakhera by caste Lakhera resident of Mohalla Baachadi Kasba
Kotputli District Jaipur Rajasthan
--- Petitioner- Defendant
Versus
Hajarilal son of late Shri Gheesaram Lakhera by caste Lakhera resident of Mohalla Baachadi
Kasba Kotputli District Jaipur Rajasthan.
--- Respondent- Plaintiff
Date of Order: October 09, 2018.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner-defendant (hereafter `the defendant') is aggrieved of the order dated 19-9-2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Kotputli in suit No.27/2011 dismissing his application raising objection to exhibition of a family settlement on the ground of it being unregistered and unstamped and closing his opportunity of cross examination of the plaintiff-respondent (hereafter `the plaintiff').
The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, his brother from the suit premises which 2 came to the plaintiff's share under a family settlement dated 26-4- 1989.
During the course of evidence of the plaintiff, when he sought to exhibit the family settlement dated 26-4-1989, a photocopy of which was on record filed along with the plaint, it was objected to by the defendant's counsel. An application raising objection on ground of the family settlement neither being registered nor stamped was also filed. The trial court considering that the family settlement in issue already a copy of which was on record, and the plaintiff during his cross examination was carrying the original thereof, dismissed the defendant's application as the family settlement was required neither to be registered nor stamped. The defendant's application was dismissed and as the defendant's counsel left the court, in defiance because of his disagreement with the court's view, the trial court also closed the defendant's opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff vide the impugned order dated 19-9- 2018. Hence this petition.
Heard counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order dated 19-9-2018 passed by the trial court.
A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the defendant's application was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the document Ex.3, the admissibility of which was objected to by the defendant was a family settlement, a copy of which was already on 3 record of the plaint and the plaintiff was in possession of the original of the said document while in the witness box. Further the defendant's counsel expressed his aggressive disagreement with the trial court's view on the admissibility of the family settlement dated 26-4-1989 and it being marked as Ex.3 by effectively boycotting the trial court in hurriedly leaving the court and refusing to cross examine the plaintiff in the witness box. That was incondonable behaviour leading to the opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff being closed.
I find no perversity in the discretion exercised by the trial court. The impugned order is fair exercise of its discretion on objective consideration of facts on record and settled legal position that a family settlement to be admissible is neither required to be registered nor to be stamped. Its probative worth is another matter, which is for the trial court to determine on evidence in regard thereto before it. The impugned order suffers neither from any perversity, patent illegality, misdirection in law or error of jurisdiction to warrant interference by this court under Article and 227 of the Constitution of India.
I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)