AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.—This civil revision is directed against order dated 5.8.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baijnath in CMA No. 171/1 of 2011 in civil suit No. 138 of 2009.
Material facts necessary for adjudication of this revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants" for convenience sake) from keeping any opening in their construction towards the path and Abadi of the plaintiff or put the slab over-hanging the path of the plaintiff with a further relief for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close any opening in the construction towards the path and Abadi of the plaintiff and also to demolish the part of slab which over hangs the path of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC read with Section 151 of the Code for placing on record the copy of compromise deed and photographs. The application was resisted by the defendants. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the application on 5.8.2011.
Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate appearing vice learned counsel for the plaintiff has strenuously argued that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while rejecting the application. According to him, the plaintiff has made out a case for placing on record the copy of compromise deed and photographs.
Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the defendants has supported the order dated 5.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baijnath.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
The evidence of the defendants was closed on 19.8.2010. Thereafter seven opportunities have been granted to the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence between 13.9.2010 to 16.2.2011.
The plaintiff has not mentioned how the documents which he wanted to produce on record had bearing on the outcome of the case. One agreement, i.e. Ex.P-1 was already on record. There are no cogent and convincing reasons assigned in the application why the same has been moved at the belated stage though seven opportunities have already been afforded to him to lead rebuttal evidence. The plaintiff had also availed 3-4 opportunities after the case was ripe for hearing. Consequently, there is no procedural error or irregularity in order dated 5.8.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baijnath in CMA No. 171/1 of 2011 in civil suit No. 138 of 2009 and the same is affirmed.
Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in this civil revision and the same is dismissed.