SBCWP No.1342/2008 Smt. Indra Vyas & Ors. Vs. Smt. Geeta & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.1342/2008 Smt. Indra Vyas & Ors Vs. Smt. Geeta & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 12.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RR Nagori, for the petitioners. Mr.RK Rathi, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 24.1.2008 as petitioners' application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioners sought permission to produce the documents mentioned in list of documents, copy of which has been placed on record alongwith the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC (Annex.6). These documents are the copy of the voter list for the year 1995 and 2004, letter dated 29.8.1991 alleged to have been written by the husband of the defendant, copy of the bill dated 3rd June, 2000, the copy of the bills mentioned in column no.4 of the list of documents. In addition to above documents, the petitioners sought permission to produce the copy of the order-sheets of the civil original suit no.165/1987 dated 9th March, 1995, copy of the restoration application dated 3rd SBCWP No.1342/2008 Smt. Indra Vyas & Ors. Vs. Smt. Geeta & Ors. 2 June, 1995, reply to the restoration application dated 24th Nov., 1995, copy of the Vakalatnama, copy of the order- sheets dated 15th May, 2000 and copy of the civil original suit no.165/1987. All these documents have been not allowed to be taken on record by the trial court on the ground that the documents are not relevant as well as have been filed after delay and there is no reference of the documents in the pleading. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that earlier a suit was filed by Mool Chand and that was dismissed though in default and an application for restoration of said suit was filed and that restoration application was also dismissed. In a suit for partition, the above documents are relevant. It is also submitted that filing of the suit by Mool Chand, its dismissal and dismissal of its restoration application are not in dispute then in that situation, the trial court's observation that the above documents are not relevant or have not been referred in the pleadings is contrary to the fact as well as contrary to the legal position. It is submitted that those documents are relevant but there is some delay but because of delay, the SBCWP No.1342/2008 Smt. Indra Vyas & Ors. Vs. Smt. Geeta & Ors. 3 trial court sould not have refused the permission to produce the documents and the plaintiff could have been compensated with the cost. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the documents are absolutely irrelevant because of the reason that though earlier suit was filed by Mool Chand and that was dismissed in default and restoration application was filed, but, thereafter, there was oral partition, but because of the oral partition, an application was submitted before the trial court informing the trial court that because of that reason, there is no reason to proceed with the restoration application and since in that situation filing of the suit, itself dismissal and its not restoring the suit is absolutely irrelevant. It is submitted that not only there was oral partition but partition was admitted in writing and that application was submitted in court. Be it as it may be, the fact is that all these documents are required to be seen by the court while deciding the suit. Therefore, the observation of the trial court that documents were not relevant appears to be wrong and thereby the trial SBCWP No.1342/2008 Smt. Indra Vyas & Ors. Vs. Smt. Geeta & Ors. 4 court failed to exercise the jurisdiction in taking on record these documents. The documents have though filed after delay, but looking to the totality of the facts of the case, the delay cannot be fatal because these documents relating to earlier litigation are the documents trustworthy and will help the court in deciding the issues involved in the suit. So far as production of the voter list referred above and the bills are concerned, I do not find that there is any reason to allow the production of these documents in evidence at such belated stage at the time of evidence of the defendants. Consequently, the writ petition of the petitioners is partly allowed. The order of the trial court disallowing the production of the documents mentioned in list of documents at S.No.6 to 11 is set aside and the application is allowed in part and these documents are taken on record. Record of the trial court be sent to the trial court forthwith. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-