AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma, J
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.4.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P (Camp at Bilaspur), whereby an application having been filed by proforma respondent No.5, Smt. Lajya Devi and respondent No.6, Master Ankush under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC, seeking therein permission to tender in evidence an award dated 23.06.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Land Reference No.47/4 of 2012, titled as Mansha Ram and others Vs. LAC & others, came to be allowed, petitioner respondent has approached this Court in the instant proceeding filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to setaside aforesaid impugned order as well as application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC.
Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, have put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1, 2, 5 & 6 and respondents No.3 and 4, respectively.
Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record visavis reasoning assigned by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that Court below has fallen in grave error while allowing the application under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC, granting permission therein to respondents No.5 and 6 to place on record award, dated 23.6.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in Land Reference No.47/4 of 2012 because admittedly respondents No.5 and 6 never chose to file written statement nor they ever furnished the list of witness for adducing the evidence on their behalf.
At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce Order 8 Rule 1A CPC herein:
" Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him:
(1)Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for setoff or counterclaim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement."
Careful perusal of order 8 Rule 1A CPC, clearly suggests that documents intended to be placed reliance during trial are required to be placed alongwith written statement, if any, filed on behalf of the defendant. Aforesaid provision of law further provides that documents intended to be relied upon must be necessarily entered in the list of documents to be filed alongwith the written statement.
In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that respondents No.5 and 6 neither filed written statement nor furnished any list of witnesses and as such, there was no occasion for the Court below to allow the application having been filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC.
Though, averments contained in the application ( Annexure P5), suggest that above named respondents in para2 of the application while fairly admitting that they did not lead any evidence in the case, claimed that they had adopted the evidence led by the petitioner as well as cross examination conducted by them, but inadvertently such fact never came to be mentioned in the order sheet nor in the cross examination of the witnesses. Interestingly, no specific finding, if any, has been returned by the learned Court below while considering the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC qua the aforesaid fact stated in para2 of the application, meaning thereby aforesaid assertion made by respondents No.5 and 6 in para2 of the application is not correct.
Leaving everything aside, impugned order, wherein no specific finding qua the aforesaid fact of the matter stand recorded, never came to be laid challenge by respondents No.5 and 6 in any of the proceedings.
Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 20.4.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P (Camp at Bilaspur), is quashed and setaside and application under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC is also dismissed.
Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before the learned Court below on 18.11.2019, enabling it to proceed with the matter further, so that no further delay is caused.
However, having taken note of the fact that the case is pending adjudication since the year, 2008, this Court hopes and trust that learned Court below would make all out efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.