AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an immovable property have preferred the present revisional application
challenging an order, whereby two applications of the petitioners have been rejected.
By the first application, the petitioners sought for an order of impoundment of an agreement, which they wanted to rely on for the purpose of
establishing their rights in respect of the suit property. By the second application, the petitioners sought to have such agreement exhibited.
While refusing the prayers of the petitioner, the trial court apparently proceeded on the premise that the agreement in question could be considered for
collateral purpose and, as such, did not require for impoundment. As to the document being exhibited, the court was rather vague and found that as in
the suit, the execution and attestation of the said document had not been established either by exhibiting document or by attesting witnesses so that the
same could not be marked as exhibit, the document was kept marked ‘X’ for identification.
The petitioners challenging such order, contend that they want to rely on such document in question as a principal document as in any event, even as
the collateral document such document requires impoundment. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners will adhere to due course
of law to get the same exhibited and the trial court ought not to have stood in the way.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposes such prayer and cites a decision of the Delhi High Court in
the case of Smt. Ram Jawai & ors. vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi & ors. reported in A.I.R. 1993 Delhi 330 for the proposition that unless a material is
subjected to cross examination, the same cannot be relied on by the court.
He further relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in A.I.R. 2009 S.C.
1489 for the proposition that even in respect of a collateral document, impoundment was necessary. It appears that the opposite parties no. 1 and 3,
who were also plaintiffs in the court below, are unrepresented. As such, this revision petition cannot be disposed of finally.
Since sufficiently and legally plausible argument has been advanced by both the parties, the matter requires detailed hearing. As such, the petitioners
are directed to serve copies of this revisional application on the opposite parties no. 1 and 3, along with a notice indicating that this revisional
application will appear for hearing as “contested application†in the monthly combined list of cases for the month of August 2018 and to file an
affidavit of service to that effect at the next hearing.
For the present, service of notice of this revisional application on the opposite party no. 4, who were proforma defendant in the court below, is
dispensed with. During pendency of this revisional application, all further proceedings in Title Suit No. 43 of 2015 pending before the Civil Judge
(Junior Division) Additional Court No. II at Contai, Purba Medinipur, shall remain stayed.