1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4677/2009. (Deep Chand Vs. Mohini Devi & Others) DATE OF ORDER : May 15, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. J.R. Beniwal for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while challenging the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajgarh. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an objection petition was filed in the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 58, C.P.C. by him against the execution of the decree and judgment dated 09.12.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Rajgarh. In the application filed under Order 21 Rule 58, C.P.C., an application under Order 7 Rule 14, C.P.C. for taking certain documents on record was also filed. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 18.04.2009 rejected the prayer of the applicant with cost of Rs.500/- while giving the finding that the documents for which prayer has been 2 made for taking the same on record are not relevant documents and, so also, it does not appear from the perusal of the documents that those documents or photographs are even relevant for the purpose of deciding the objection raised under Order 21 Rule 58, C.P.C. by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner is grand-son of respondent Maibax who was defendant in the suit decided on 09.12.1999 and, in the execution proceedings he has raised objection that he is in possession of the property in question, therefore, decree passed by the trial Court cannot be executed because he was not party in the proceedings of the suit. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected his application under Order 7 Rule 14, C.P.C. with regard to taking the documents on record. It is submitted that those documents for which prayer was made are material evidence to show that the petitioner is in possession of the shop in question. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error while rejecting his application for taking documents on record. The respondents have deliberately not impleaded the petitioner as party in the execution proceedings. Further, it is argued that respondent No.1 who has made the prayer for execution of the decree is well aware with the fact that the petitioner is tenant in the shop in question and the documents filed by the petitioner were relevant to show that he is tenant in the shop in question, therefore, the rejection order 3 dated 18.04.2009 deserves to be quashed and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14, C.P.C., read with Section 151, C.P.C. deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards judgment reported in 2005 (2) RLW 784 and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kanhaiya Singh Santok Singh & Others Vs. Kartar Singh, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2513. I have perused the impugned order, so also, averments made in the writ petition. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has perused the documents filed by the petitioner along with the application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. Upon perusal, the trial Court has found that these documents are not relevant to decide the objection petition filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58, C.P.C. The learned trial Court gave the finding that these documents do not show that the petitioner is pursuing business in the shop in question. In my opinion, the finding of the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal because after perusing the documents the learned trial Court has categorically observed that these documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the objection filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58, C.P.C. Upon perusal of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner it is obvious that the facts of the reported cases are altogether different. In this case, the eviction decree was passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Rajgarh on 03.12.1999 4 against Maibax and the applicant is grand-son of Maibax. The day on which the decree was passed Maibax was alive, therefore, for the purpose of execution of the decree, the decree holder impleaded those legal heirs of Maibax who were in possession of the shop in question. In this view of the matter, the trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. More so, the order is based on sound reasons and does not require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.