@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mr. Arun Bhansali, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 17/3/2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, their application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) C.P.C. has been rejected.
2. A suit was filed by the respondents Gopal & Others inter alia seeking permanent injunction, declaration and easementary right of way and for pipeline on 22/3/2005.
3. Written statement was filed on 26/5/2005. Thereafter, it appears that the evidence of the plaintiffs was over on 8/10/2015. Where after, after seeking adjournments for production of evidence on four occasions, the present application was filed on 3/12/2015 seeking to produce certified copy of civil suit no.1/2003, affidavit produced by Gopal Lal in evidence along with cross examination, a `Bahi'' and photo copy of sale deed.
4. It was averred that the defendants were not party to the suit and were not aware that the plaintiff Gopal Lal has given evidence and during the course of evidence of plaintiffs in the present suit, they became aware that the evidence was given and, where after, certified copies of the documents in suit no. 1/2003 were obtained; the documents are certified copies and cannot be doubted as fraudulent or concocted. The `Bahi'' and the sale deed are also genuine & copies thereof have been obtained from the revenue department and the documents are necessary for just disposal of the suit.
5. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. It was inter alia indicated that earlier also applications were filed which were disposed of by the trial court and the said documents were in existence at that time also, therefore, the same could have been produced and the present application was not maintainable and deserves dismissal.
6. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the suit no.1/2003 was filed on 3/1/2001, statements of Gopal were recorded on 19/12/2008, sale deed was executed on 19/12/2011 and that the present suit was pending since 22/3/2005, the evidence of the plaintiffs had started on 4/4/2015 and concluded on 8/10/2015. If the documents are taken on record, the same could not be used for cross examination by the counsel for the plaintiff and the `Bahi'', which was sought to be produced was unstamped and unregistered & documents were filed with delay and consequently dismissed the application.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed an error in dismissing the application of the petitioners on baseless consideration inasmuch as it is indicated that the counsel for the plaintiffs would not be able to cross examine the witnesses, whereas, admittedly, the evidence of defendants is yet to commence. The copy of the sale deed is certified copy issued by the revenue department and, therefore, there is no question of same being unstamped and unregistered and, therefore, at least qua said documents, the dismissal is improper.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioners became aware of the statement and cross examination of Gopal Lal after the evidence of plaintiffs was over and, therefore, it cannot be said that the documents were filed with delay and, therefore, also the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. Reliance was placed on Madan Lal & Anr. v. Rent Tribunal, Alwar & anr., 2006 (3) RLW 2498, Munna v. Om Prakash & Anr., 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 694 and Vidhya Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer & Ors., 2015 (1) WLN 416 (Raj.).
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
11. A bare look to the written statement filed by the petitioners indicate that in para 3 of the written statement a specific reference has been made regarding pendency of the suit no. 1/2003 Kanhiyalal v. Satyanarain and averments have been made with reference to the said suit that facts have been concealed and that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands.
12. As already noticed hereinbefore, the written statement was filed way back on 26/5/2005 and on the said date the petitioners were aware of filing of the suit and their claim in the present proceedings that the statement of Gopal Lal, which was recorded on 19/12/2008, the petitioners were not aware, cannot be countenanced and so far as other documents are concerned, no specific averments have been made as to how the petitioners became aware of the existence of `Bahi'' and the sale deed dated 19/12/2011 and, therefore, for lack of proper explanation for the delay, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application.
13. So far as the observations made by the trial court about counsel for the plaintiffs not getting an opportunity to cross examine is concerned, the same, though apparently are incorrect, have to be read in the context that the petitioners, if allowed to produce those documents, as the evidence of plaintiffs has already been closed, would not be able to confront Gopal Lal with the said documents and, therefore, the said documents in the absence of such confrontation would be of no use. The necessary corollary, if the application was allowed by the trial court would have been to permit recall of the witness, which would have again taken back the case to square one, which looking to the facts of the case that the same is pending for over 12 years, could not have been justified in the circumstances of the case.
14. So far as the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the said judgments do not lay down principle in general and have only dealt with the circumstances of the particular cases, which were present before the court in respective cases and, therefore, the said judgments do not advance the cause of the petitioners in any manner.
15. In the overall circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. No interference is called for in the order impugned, the writ petition is dismissed.
