Manoj Kumar and Another vs Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—This petition has been filed against the order dt. 19.11.2011 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 & 15 CPC read with Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs in the suit. Perused the writ petition as also the impugned order dt. 19.11.2011 and heard the counsel for the petitioners.

The Court below has come to a finding that on the admitted case of the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter ''the plaintiffs''), they had received a letter No. 1065 dt 2.1.02.1984 from the respondent-Municipal Board. The Court below was of the view that on the admitted case, the original of the letter ought to have been with the plaintiffs and there was no occasion to issue any direction under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC for production of such a letter from the respondent-Municipal Board. The Court below further held that even otherwise the plaintiffs were unable to show as to how the said letter as also the file relating thereto was relevant for the determination of the relevant issues in the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs. It was also noted by the Court below that in any event of the matter, the plaintiffs could have applied to the respondent-Municipal Board and on payment of requisite charges obtained a certified copy of the office copy of the said letter dt. 21.02.1984 from the respondent-Municipal Board and having failed to do so could not instead burden the Court with the obligation to facilitate the production of the said letter in the course of proceeding in the suit for permanent injunction.

In my considered view, the reasoning of the Court below in view of the original letter dt. 21.02.1984 admittedly being with the plaintiffs is absolutely correct. The original of the letter received by the plaintiffs had of necessity to be with the plaintiffs. Further, the Court below has rightly held that the letter of which production was sought by the plaintiffs was not germane the suit of permanent injunction laid as the issue in the suit was with regard to the rights of the plaintiffs to use and occupy the land which in turn was dependent on the title of the plaintiffs to the said land vis a vis that of the respondent-municipal Board and not on the letter dt. 21.02.1984 which related to a penalty levied on the plaintiffs in the course of an anti-encroachment drive.

In my considered view, the impugned order is a good order-neither perverse, nor vitiated by any misdirection in law on the question of jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.