AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed seeking to lead further evidence by producing two documents namely, cumulative record and genealogical tree.
Petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The trial Court has rejected this request holding that the matter was remanded by the High Court as per the order passed in MSA No. 128/04 for fresh decision and the plaintiff did not state anything in his affidavit as to how the two documents sought to be produced were necessary for adjudication of the case. The court below has further found that for effective adjudication of the dispute, documents sought to be produced were not necessary. Hence, the request for production of the documents and for leading further evidence is rejected.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In MSA No. 128/04, disposed of on 19th June 2006, this Court reserved liberty to the plaintiff to apply for amendment of the plaint for addition of a new party namely, the purchasers of the said suit schedule property (Item No. 4 in the plaint schedule). It is further observed that the evidence recorded already was not disturbed and the parties were at liberty to adduce further evidence. In the light of these observations made by the High Court, plaintiff has added the purchasers as additional defendants and has filed the present application seeking permission to produce the aforementioned two documents with a request to lead further evidence.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cumulative record and the genealogical tree are necessary as the purchasers, defendants 4 and 5 in their written statement at paragraph-5 have denied the assertions made by the plaintiff that he was the son of Lakshmamma.
I have perused the written statement filed by respondents 4 and 5. In the light of the above and in the wake of denial of the relationship of the petitioner with the said Lakshmamma, if the cumulative record and the genealogical tree are produced and further evidence is led, it cannot be said that the said documents were unnecessary for the adjudication of the dispute.
Since the dispute relates to partition of the suit property, the relationship of the petitioner plaintiff with the said Smt. Lakshmamma is necessary to be addressed. Hence the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The application fifed by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed. It is made clear that the Court below shall ensure that the matter is disposed of expeditiously without giving room for undue protraction.