1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5208/2005 Samandar Singh Versus Vijay Bhan Singh & Others Date of Order :: 14th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. N.K. Singhal for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Goyal ) for the respondent no.1 Ms. Manish Surana ) Mr. B.K. Sharma for the respondent no.2 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Goyal appears for respondent no.1 and Mr. Sharma appears for respondent no.2. The respondent no.3 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration in the trial court wherein plaintiff's evidence was closed and case was fixed for cross-examination of defendant's witnesses and at that stage, the plaintiff- petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC dated 11th April, 2005 seeking permission to place on record the original documents as referred in the application, 2 wherein it was contended by him that these original documents were not traceable at the relevant time and only photo-stat copies of the same were available, which had already been filed in the case and which are also available on record, but the same could not be marked as exhibit in absence of original documents. It was further contended that these documents are very relevant and material for proper adjudication of the case and in case the same are not taken on record, then the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. The application was contested by the defendants. The trial court vide its order dated 27th May, 2005 rejected the application. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that filing of these documents is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in case he is not allowed to place the said documents on record, then he will suffer irreparable injury. He further contended that photo-copies of these documents have already been placed on record, therefore, genuineness of these documents cannot be doubted. The original documents were not available at the relevant time, therefore, the 3 same are now being filed. He further contended that he will not lead any further evidence in case the documents are taken on record and exhibited in the case. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the documents were in possession of the plaintiff but he himself delayed the matter and did not place on record these documents. The plaintiff's evidence has already been closed and present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court alongwith other documents annexed with the writ petition including the application dated 11th April, 2005, wherein a reference of these documents has been given. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that photo-stat copies of these documents have already been placed on record, therefore, no doubt can be raised on genuineness of these documents. The explanation of the petitioner that these documents were not traceable at the relevant time appears to be reasonable. So far as delay of proceedings is concerned, the same can be compensated by way 4 of awarding cost to the defendants. 6. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27th May, 2005 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC dated 11th April, 2005 filed by the petitioner is allowed and the documents as referred and annexed with the application are ordered to be taken on record. The trial court is directed to mark exhibits on the said documents on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-, which will be paid to the defendants equally within a period of three weeks, failing which these documents will not be taken on record and will not be exhibited. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner has undertaken that he will not lead any evidence in the matter, therefore, the trial court will proceed further in the matter from the stage the case is fixed. 8. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 4440/2005 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5208/2005 Samandar Singh Versus Vijay Bhan Singh & Others Date of Order :: 14th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. N.K. Singhal for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Goyal ) for the respondent no.1 Ms. Manish Surana ) Mr. B.K. Sharma for the respondent no.2 BY THE COURT: Consequent upon the disposal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK