Ramji Lal Vs. Durga Lal

Ramji Lal vs Durga Lal

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 26, 1988

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765352

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/765352
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: I.S. Israni, J.
Decided On: Nov 26, 1988
Case Number: S.B. Civil Revision No. 81 of 1988
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code - Order 13, Rule 2--Procedure to do substantial justice and not to penalize for delay--Letter and copy of judgment above suspicion--No likelihood of delay in disposal of suit--Held, petition under Order 13, Rule 2 is allowed.;The procedure has been laid down with a view to do substantial justice...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramji Lal

Advocate Shri. Goyal

Respondent

Durga Lal

Legal References

Cases Referred: Gyani Ram v. Gulab Chand
Reported In: 1988WLN(UC)417

Excerpt

civil procedure code - order 13, rule 2--procedure to do substantial justice and not to penalize for delay--letter and copy of judgment above suspicion--no likelihood of delay in disposal of suit--held, petition under order 13, rule 2 is allowed.;the procedure has been laid down with a view to do substantial justice with the parties and not to penalize for any delays that may be caused on account of some circumstances many a times beyond the control of the parties. in this case since the documents are above suspicion and the petitioners-defendants do not want to produce any evidence in support thereof therefore, there is no likelihood of any delay in disposal of the suit. so far as the impact of the documents on the dispute between the parties will be seen by the trial court at the time of deciding the suit itself. in above view i am inclined to allow the application under order 13, rule 2, cpc.;application allowed - .....mentioned in paras nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint and also for removal of the construction. the trial court framed issue no. i whether the disputed land/gali is of ownership and in possession of the plaintiffs-non-petitioners.3. an application under order 13, rule 2, cpc was filed on 9-10-1987 praying that two documents i.e. a letter dated 31-7-1987 of assistant commissioner, devsthan and a certified copy of judgment of assistant commissioner, devsthan may be permitted to be taken on record. the trial court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 28th october, 1987.4. the contention of shri goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants is that the documents are above suspicion. he also states that he does not want to produce any evidence in support of the documents and therefore, there will be no delay in disposing of the suit which is on the stage of hearing for final disposal.5. reliance has been placed on case of municipal council bharatpur v. gokul chand and anr. 1987 (2) rlr 248, in which it was held that since the documents are certified copies of judgments of various courts and relate to land in dispute in the suit itself, should have been allowed by the trial court to be taken in evidence. reliance has also been placed on case of gyani ram v. gulab chand 1960 rlw (2) 321.6. the contention of s.k. gupta, learned counsel for the non-petitioner-plaintiffs is that the documents are filed at belated stage and according to him are not relevant for the purpose of the dispute between the parties in the suit pending in the trial court, even though he does not suspect the genuineness of the documents.7. the procedure has been laid down with a view to do substantial justice with the parties and not to penalize for any delays that may be caused on account of some circumstances many a times beyond the' control of the parties. in this case since the documents are above suspicion and the petitioners-defendants do not want to.....

Full Judgment

I.S. Israni, J.

1. This civil revision petition under Section 115, CPC has been filed against the order dated 28-10-1987 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Civil Suit No. 62/1982.

2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-non-petitioners claiming issue of permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants to restrain them from opening spout or put any terrish towards the disputed land mentioned in paras Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint and also for removal of the construction. The trial court framed issue No. I whether the disputed land/gali is of ownership and in possession of the plaintiffs-non-petitioners.

3. An application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC was filed on 9-10-1987 praying that two documents i.e. a letter dated 31-7-1987 of Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan and a certified copy of judgment of Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan may be permitted to be taken on record. The trial court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 28th October, 1987.

4. The contention of Shri Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants is that the documents are above suspicion. He also states that he does not want to produce any evidence in support of the documents and therefore, there will be no delay in disposing of the suit which is on the stage of hearing for final disposal.

5. Reliance has been placed on case of Municipal Council Bharatpur v. Gokul Chand and Anr. 1987 (2) RLR 248, in which it was held that since the documents are certified copies of judgments of various courts and relate to land in dispute in the suit itself, should have been allowed by the trial court to be taken in evidence. Reliance has also been placed on case of Gyani Ram v. Gulab Chand 1960 RLW (2) 321.

6. The contention of S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner-plaintiffs is that the documents are filed at belated stage and according to him are not relevant for the purpose of the dispute between the parties in the suit pending in the trial court, even though he does not suspect the genuineness of the documents.

7. The procedure has been laid down with a view to do substantial justice with the parties and not to penalize for any delays that may be caused on account of some circumstances many a times beyond the' control of the parties. In this case since the documents are above suspicion and the petitioners-defendants do not want to produce any evidence in support thereof therefore, there is no likelihood of any delay in disposal of the suit. So far as the impact of the documents on the dispute between the parties will be seen by the trial court at the time of deciding the suit itself. In above view I am inclined to allow the application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC filed on 9th October, 1987 and allow the two documents, to be taken in evidence provided the the petitioners-defendants pay cost of Rs. 100/-. The next date may be fixed in the trial court within three weeks.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1988 Same Parties Ramji Lal vs Durga Lal Same Subject Civil Same Judge I.S. Israni, J.

Civil