IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.472/2004 Girdhari Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh @ Sohan Lal and Others Versus Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 21.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for petitioners Shri D.D. Patodiya and Shri S.N. Gupta, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court against the defendant-petitioners wherein the defendants filed an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC along- with a certified copy of the judgment dated 14th March, 1997 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, to take the same on the record. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 27th October, 1999. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition preferred by the defendants. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is a non-speaking order. The defendants had also contended in their application that the judgment is necessary to be taken on the record for proper adjudication of the case and that was the sufficient reason for allowing their application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court be set-aside and their application be allowed and documents be taken on the record. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order passed by the trial court and contended that an appeal is already pending against the judgment dated 14th March, 1997, therefore, there was no purpose for taking the same on the record. Therefore, the writ petition be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The trial court, vide its order dated 27th October, 1999, dismissed the application of the defendants under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC only on the ground that the defendants have not mentioned the reasons as to why this document was not placed on the record before framing of the issues. No other reason has been given for rejection of the application. A copy of the application has been placed on the record as Annexure-2 with the writ petition wherein the relevancy and necessity of the document has been mentioned and the said fact has not been taken into consideration by the trial court while rejecting the application. I find that the impugned order passed by the trial court is absolutely illegal and cannot be allowed to be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27th October, 1999 passed by the trial court is set- aside. The application filed by the defendants under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is allowed. The document annexed with the application is taken on the record at the costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), which will be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs or their counsel on or before 10th July, 2008 with the clear understanding that in case the amount of costs is not paid on or before the aforesaid date then this writ petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and the above referred document will not be taken on the record. It will be open for the plaintiff- respondents to place on record any other document in rebuttal of the above referred document, in the trial court. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.434/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.472/2004 Girdhari Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh @ Sohan Lal and Others Versus Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 21.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for petitioners Shri D.D. Patodiya and Shri S.N. Gupta, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//