JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 19/2/2021 passed on I.A. No. 17 and 18 in
O.S. No. 63/2014.
(2.)The petitioner No.1 is the plaintiff No.1 before the trial Court. The suit is one for partition and separate possession. I.A. No. 17
was filed seeking permission to lead further evidence by reopening
the examination of the plaintiff witnesses and I.A. No. 18 was filed
under Order VII Rule 14(3) r/w Sec. 151 of CPC seeking to
produce additional documents, namely, a wedding invitation, voters
list, unregistered relinquishment deed, income certificate of plaintiff
No.1, school certificate, mutation record, marriage card, mutation,
record of rights in respect of Sy. No. 292 from the year 1962-63 to
1992-93. The main ground on which the trial Court has rejected both the applications is that the evidence of the defendants were
concluded and the matter was posted for arguments and at that
stage the applications were filed. The affidavit accompanying the
application also does not show cause for the delay in production of
the additional documents. Consequently, the applications are
dismissed on the ground that there is no acceptable reason as to
why the plaintiff no.1 could not produce said documents earlier.
(3.)Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the suit was filed in the year 2014 and after lapse of six years, after
evidence of both the sides were concluded and the matter was
posted for arguments, at that stage the two applications were filed
by the first plaintiff.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.