Madhya Pradesh High Court
Trimurti Charitable Public Trust Thr vs Muni Kumar Rajdan on 27 November, 2015
Trimurti Charitable Public Trust and Anr. v. Muni Kumar and Anr. 1
WP.7691.2015
27.11.2015
Shri Deepak Khot Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri B.K. Agarwal, learned counsel
for respondent no. 1.
With the consent of parties matter is heard finally.
In this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20 t h of October, 2015 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected.
The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff had filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff in support of his claim Trimurti Charitable Public Trust and Anr. v. Muni Kumar and Anr. 2 WP.7691.2015 examined himself. Thereafter, during the course of examination of the defendants' witness, namely Suneel Shukla two, wills were executed, namely, Ex. P-81 and P-82 dated 11.3. 1994 and 11.1. 1993. The petitioner therefore filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC for recalling plaintiff in order to enable him to cross examine the plaintiff in regard to the aforesaid Wills. The said application has been rejected by the trial court interalia on the ground that the plaintiff has closed his evidence on 22.11. 2013 and wills in question have been produced before the trial court in the month of September, 2014. In the aforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner has approached this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cross examination of the plaintiff is necessary for a fair Trimurti Charitable Public Trust and Anr. v. Muni Kumar and Anr. 3 WP.7691.2015 and complete adjudication of controversy involved in the suit.
On the other hand learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that the documents have been filed only with a view to protract the proceedings in the suit.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the trial court has rejected the application in a cryptic and cavaliar manner without assigning any reason merely on the ground that the same is belated. In other words, the trial court has dealt with the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code without application of mind. The impugned order suffers from the error apparent Trimurti Charitable Public Trust and Anr. v. Muni Kumar and Anr. 4 WP.7691.2015 on the face of the record. Therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The trial court is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, expeditiously.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Cc as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ar