Uttarakhand High Court
Mohan Lal Sharma vs Order Xviii Rule 16 Cpc Preferred By The on 21 March, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
21.03.2023 WPMS No. 793 of 2023
Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
The petitioners-who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Original Suit No. 384 of 2017 titled "Madan Mohan Lal Sharma vs. Ashok Ratna Tripathi and others" pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to assail the order dated 28.01.2023, whereby the Application under Order XVIII Rule 16 CPC preferred by the respondent/plaintiff to record his evidence, on the ground that he is 90 years of age, has been allowed.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that service on two defendants-who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this petition is still not complete, though the petitioners have filed their written statement in the said Suit, wherein the respondent/plaintiff has sought a declaration to the effect that the trust-deed dated 21.07.2011 registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Sadar, II, Dehradun is null and void. No issues have, till date, been framed and, therefore, there is no clarity as to on what aspects, the evidence has to be led by the parties.
It is further submitted that Order XVIII Rule 16 CPC can be invoked by a party, which is due to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. This cannot be said about the respondent/plaintiff, and the ground on which the said Rule has been invoked is his ripe age.
I have heard the submissions of learned counsel, and perused the impugned order.
I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order for the reasons that the written statement of the petitioners / defendants is available on record; they are contesting the suit preferred by the respondent/plaintiff; it is for the Court to frame the issues and; from the pleadings of the parties, namely, the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the Trial Court would be in a position to appreciate as to what are the issues arising in the Suit; respondent No. 1/ plaintiff is 90 years' old and, therefore, it is essential to record his evidence, lest, God forbid, he leaves this world (not just the jurisdiction of the Court).
I am of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Vipin Sanghi, CJ) 21.03.2023 Rathour