// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2956/2007 Smt. Indu Mital W/o Col. Shri Gopal Mital Versus Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 21.08.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.P. Garg, Counsel for petitioner Shri Subhash Srivastava, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri Subhash Srivastava, Advocate, appears for the respondents No.2 to 4. Respondent No.1 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed property and, after completion of trial, the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred and, during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC with a prayer that the original 'patta' dated 05.10.1980, a copy of which was placed on the record in the trial court and exhibited as Exhibit-5, be taken on the record. The learned // 2 // appellate court rejected the said application vide order dated 9th April, 2007, which is under challenge in this writ petition, preferred on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a Photostat copy of 'patta' dated 05.10.1980 was already placed on record by him and the same was exhibited as Exhibit-5 in the case, however, the learned trial court observed that it is only a Photostat copy. He submits that now the original 'patta' is available, therefore, he may be allowed to place the same on the record. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is cutting in the document i.e. 'patta' dated 05.10.1980, therefore, the appellate court rightly refused to allow the same to be placed on the record. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the appellate court and also the document i.e. allotment letter dated 05.10.1980. No doubt, there is some cutting in the said document but I am not examining the merits of the document here in this writ petition. The question involved in the present case is as to whether the original copy of the allotment letter should be allowed to be placed on the record. So far as merits of the document // 3 // is concerned, the same will be examined by the appropriate court at appropriate time. The document is also available on the record as Exhibit-5 which also bears some cutting on it, therefore, the same should have been allowed by the appellate court to be placed on the record and the appellate court therefore committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the appellate court is set-aside. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the petitioner is allowed. The original copy of allotment letter dated 05.10.1980 is ordered to be taken on the record by the first appellate court on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), which will be paid within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the said document will not be taken on the record. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//