1 Ram Prasad & Ors. Vs. Lal Chand (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4594/2008) Date of Order :: 23.4.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Ramandeep Singh, for the petitioners. Mr. S.R. Sharma, for the respondents. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gulabpura, Bhilwara, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners-defendants under Order XI Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, stands rejected. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while passing the order impugned , the court below has disregarded the fact that in the counter claim to the suit in para no. 17, the petitioners have explicitly stated that the respondent has got registered the sale deed of the land in question by producing false and fabricated patta. The learned counsel submitted that the document in question is germane to the matter in dispute and the learned trial court could not have rejected the application on the statement of the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the same is not in possession of the respondent-plaintiff . The learned counsel submitted that while passing the impugned order, the report of the Commissioner has also not been considered by the learned trial court. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 respondent submits that in the suit filed the decree for declaration and permanent injunction is sought by the plaintiff not on the ground of his title over the land in question but , solely on the ground of the continuous possession over the land which he has purchased from Abdul Salam for a consideration of Rs.15,000 by way of registered sale deed. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent-plaintiff does not possess any patta of the land in question therefore, the question of directing him to discover the same on oath does not arise. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that he is in possession of the land in question for a period of last more than 40 years. It is alleged that he has purchased the land in question from one Shri Abdul Salam for consideration of Rs.15,000/- by way of registered sale deed. It is not even the case of the respondent-plaintiff that there exists any 'Patta' of the land either in his favour or his predecessor Shri Abdul Salam. Even in the sale deed dated 19.4.94 produced on record, there is no mention regarding the existence of any 'Patta' in favour of transferor Abdul Salam. The respondent-plaintiff is claiming title over the land in question only on the basis of long continuous possession over the land in question. The existence of any 'Patta' of the land in question has been specifically denied by respondent-plaintiff before 3 the learned trial court. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of directing the respondent-plaintiff to discover the said document on oath does not arise. 3. For the aforementioned reasons, in considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial court has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XI Rule 12 CPC. 4. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. [SANGEET LODHA],J. vijayant