1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1073/2008 {Bihari Lal Versus Nagar Palika & Others} Date of Order :: 22nd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. S.L. Songara for the petitioner Mr. Virendra Dave) for the respondents Mr. Ajay Gupta ) BY THE COURT: The mater has come on board for orders on an application filed on behalf of respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex-parte interim stay order dated 6.2.2008 but learned counsel for both the parties contended that main case itself may be heard and disposed of finally. 2. The prayer is allowed. The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution is dismissed. The case is taken up for final hearing. 3. Admit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of disputed property in the trial court in 1998 which was dismissed on 29th October, 2005. 2 Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and during the pendency of that appeal, an application was filed by him under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on 7th January, 2008 seeking permission to place on record two documents: one, application dated 2nd March, 1993 filed by Mahaveer Prasad Ganpat Ram; and second, reply thereto dated 21st June, 1993 filed by Municipality, Khetri. The learned appellate court vide its order dated 10th January,2008 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the documents are relevant and material for the proper adjudication of the present case. There cannot be any doubt on their genuineness as they are certified copies of the originals obtained from the court of SDO, Khetri, therefore, the appellate court committed an illegality in not allowing the application of the plaintiff. He further contended that he will not lead any evidence in support of these documents and he may be permitted to exhibit them and appellate court may be directed to consider the same at the 3 time of disposal of the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that although the application was filed at very later stage and there is no illegality in the order passed by the appellate court but he has no objection in case the application is allowed on payment of cost and further that appellate court may be directed to decide the appeal itself at an early date. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned order dated 10th January, 2008. The documents sought to be produced on record before appellate court are certified copies of the application dated 2nd March, 1993 filed by Mahaveer Prasad and Ganpat Ram and reply thereto by Municipality, Khetri dated 21st June, 1993. The objection raised on behalf of the respondents about cost appears to be reasonable looking to the delay in filing the application and it is also necessary to direct the appellate court to decide the appeal expeditiously. 8. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by the Additional district Judge, 4 Khetri is set-aside. The application filed by plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed. Both the documents annexed with the application are directed to be taken on record. Both the documents may be exhibited as plaintiff's documents and be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal filed by the plaintiff. The petitioner will pay a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondents within a month, failing which the documents will not be taken on record and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to the plaintiff. The first appellate court is directed to decide the appeal as soon as possible preferably within a period of three months. 9. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK