Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Moti Jhari Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.ordernarendra nath tiwari, j.1. in this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.6.2004 passed by the learned subordinate judge, ii, deoghar in title suit no. 200 of 1997, whereby the subordinate judge has rejected the petition dated 19.2.2004, seeking leave to accept the documents i.e. the certified copy of the mutation order dated 11.12.1990 passed in mutation case no. 46 of 1989-90 and also the certified copy of the assessment report for the year 1998-99 of holding no. 345, ward no. ii in evidence.2. notice having been issued to the respondents, mr. amar kumar sinha, learned counsel, appeared on their behalf and contested the petitioner's petition and also filed counter affidavit.3. the main ground for ejecting the petitioner's application is that he had not properly prayed for leave for, accepting the documents in evidence and also that the suit is on the verge of disposal and if such prayer is allowed, the same may cause delay in disposal.4. after hearing the parties and perusing the records, i find that petitioner had filed petition dated 19.2.2004 praying the court to accept the documents and mark the same as exhibits and in the said petition, the reasons for not producing the said documents were also explained. the documents which have been said to be brought in evidence is the certified copies of the public documents and from the said petition, it is evident that the documents were filed along with the petition praying therein to accept the same. the court below has thus without properly considering the contents of the said petition has observed that leave was not sought, before filing the documents. so far as the point of delay is concerned, only on that ground, the documentary evidence cannot be shut off. there is no finding that the said documents are irrelevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties.5. in that view, i find that the order of the learned court below is not sound and proper. the impugned order dated 3.6.2004 is thus quashed. this application is allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.6.2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, II, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 200 of 1997, whereby the Subordinate Judge has rejected the petition dated 19.2.2004, seeking leave to accept the documents i.e. the certified copy of the mutation order dated 11.12.1990 passed in Mutation Case No. 46 of 1989-90 and also the certified copy of the assessment report for the year 1998-99 of Holding No. 345, Ward No. II in evidence.

2. Notice having been issued to the respondents, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, appeared on their behalf and contested the petitioner's petition and also filed counter affidavit.

3. The main ground for ejecting the petitioner's application is that he had not properly prayed for leave for, accepting the documents in evidence and also that the suit is on the verge of disposal and if such prayer is allowed, the same may cause delay in disposal.

4. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, I find that petitioner had filed petition dated 19.2.2004 praying the Court to accept the documents and mark the same as Exhibits and in the said petition, the reasons for not producing the said documents were also explained. The documents which have been said to be brought in evidence is the certified copies of the public documents and from the said petition, it is evident that the documents were filed along with the petition praying therein to accept the same. The Court below has thus without properly considering the contents of the said petition has observed that leave was not sought, before filing the documents. So far as the point of delay is concerned, only on that ground, the documentary evidence cannot be shut off. There is no finding that the said documents are irrelevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

5. In that view, I find that the order of the learned Court below is not sound and proper. The impugned order dated 3.6.2004 is thus quashed. This application is allowed.