AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Case is called out. None appears for opposite party No. 1. However, Mr. Qamar Ahmad, learned Counsel for petitioner is present.
The petitioner is aggrieved with order dated 9.8.1988 passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur, whereby the petitioner''s application to bring on record the relevant document has been rejected.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No. 1 claims his name to be recorded in the revenue records on two grounds. Earlier he moved an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records on the basis of right of succession, in which the petitioner was not a party, whereas subsequently he moved another application for mutation of his name in the revenue records claiming his right on the basis of Willdeed, in which the petitioner was a party.
Since the petitioner was having knowledge of Willdeed brought it on record but he could not bring on record the earlier application moved by the opposite party No. 1 for mutation, however, that is necessary document to decide the real controversy. Therefore, treating the same as relevant document to decide the real controversy involved in the matter, I hereby permit the petitioner to bring on record the said document before the Court below. I hereby quash the order dated 9.8.1988 passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur in Appeal No. 70 of 1988.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is partly allowed.