High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 03 RAJ CK 0064

Murli Manohar vs LRs. of Bhuralal

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 13 March 2001 · Citation: (2002) 3 RLW 1929

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Kumar Garg, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 258 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 393 words

Garg, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant against the order dt.16.2.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 28192, whereby the application submitted by the present petitioner-defendant under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC intending to produce certified copy of the judgment, was rejected.

2.

Detailed facts need not be staled here and it is suffice to say that an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was filed by the petitioner-defendant before the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhilwara, through which he produced the certified copy of the judgment dated 6.8.1998 and made prayer that it may be taken on record. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhilwara vide order dated 16.2.2001 holding inter alia that the application was filed with an intention to delay the proceedings.

3.

Aggrieved from the said order dt.16.2.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhilwara, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the impugned order.

5.

From the impugned order dated 16.2.200t passed by the learned Addl, Civii Judge (J.D.), Bhilwara, it appears that the application of the petitioner-defendant was rejected on the ground that it is belated one and has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings.

6.

In my considered opinion though the application has been filed with some delay, but the certified copy of the judgment, which was going to be produced through that application, can be said to be above suspicion and such type of judgment should be admitted so that justice can be done to the parties.

For the reasons stated above, this revision petition filed by the petitioner defendant is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhilwara is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC by which he produced the certified copy of the judgment, is allowed on payment of cost of RS. 1,000/- (Rs.one thousand only). It is made clear that since certified copy of the judgment is going to be produced in Court, for that no evidence be recorded and it is hoped that both parties will admit it.