// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4801/2007 Ganpat Lal S/o Shri Radha Kishan Versus Additional Civil Judge (Lower Division), Jaipur City (East), Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 23.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.P. Garg, Counsel for petitioner Shri J.P. Goyal, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the impugned order dated 4th May, 2007 (Annexure-1) passed in Execution Case No.56/95 (Old No.126/75) passed by the trial court rejecting his application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for taking two documents on the record. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 Prem Prakash filed a suit against the defendant Shri Narain who is now represented by his legal representatives – respondents No.3 to 6 and got collusive decree for eviction with // 2 // regard to the property where he is tenant; when he came to know about collusive decree then he filed objection petition which was allowed and the case is now fixed for evidence. An application was moved on his behalf placing on record two documents i.e. registered sale-deeds to prove that Shri Narain was occupying some another property and he was not tenant in the present property. However, the trial court wrongly rejected the application vide impugned order and it is liable to be set-aside. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 decree-holder contended that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner relate to some other property which is not subject matter of the decree or present objection petition, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that the decree has been passed in respect of Shop No.1900, Moti Doongari Road, Jaipur, whereas the documents sought to be // 3 // produced by him are not related to this property but they relate to another property which was purchased by late Shri Narain and subsequently the said property was sold by legal representatives of Shri Narain to some another person. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application are absolutely justified and no interference is called for in it. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//