AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.08.2019, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Mt. Abu, District Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby petitioner's application dated 16.05.2016, filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
Succinctly stated, pertinent facts are that the respondent - plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of possession from the defendant (petitioner herein) after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1892 (for short, 'the Act of 1882'). In the plaint aforesaid, the respondent - plaintiff had disclosed the facts with respect to earlier suit filed on 17.01.2007, though subsequently withdrawn.
When the suit reached the stage of defendant's evidence, the petitioner - defendant moved an application on 16.05.2016 and sought leave to produce certified copies of the plaint, written statement and corresponding orders, passed by the Court in earlier proceedings.
The petitioner's aforesaid application has been rejected by the Trial Court, vide its order impugned dated 19.08.2019, inter alia observing that the documents, which are being sought to be placed on record, have no relevance with the suit in question.
Oppugning the order dated 19.08.2019, passed by the Trial Court, Mr. G.J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioner's application. He argued that all the documents sought to be placed on record are certified copies of the plaint/ orders passed by the Court in the earlier suit between the same parties and reference of such suit and order has been made by none other than the plaintiff himself. He argued that the Trial Court, thus, ought to have granted petitioner's application dated 16.05.2016.
Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the order passed by the Trial Court, submitted that true it is, the reference of such documents has been made by the plaintiff, but the same was made with a view to complete the formality of disclosure of complete facts. However, looking to the nature of the suit and the contention raised therein by the rival parties, their copies were not at all required. It was argued that the suit in question is a suit for recovery of possession simplicitor, after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Act of 1882 and as such nothing needs to be gone into by the Trial Court, except existence of tenant-landlord relationship and its termination by the notice.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Trial Court has committed no error of law or of jurisdiction warranting interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
Looking to the nature of the suit, which is a suit for recovery of possession after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Act of 1882, nothing more is required to be gone into, except valid or proper service of the notice under Section 106 of the Act of 1882. So far as the relevance of the documents is concerned, merely because a reference of these documents has been made, the same cannot be said to be required for the disposal of the suit. The Trial Court has rightly rejected petitioner's application dated 16.05.2016, which seems to have been filed with a view to protract the proceedings.
As an upshot of the discussion aforesaid, this petition, which lacks merit, is dismissed summarily. The stay application also stands dismissed.