1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Smt. Kamla Sen V/s. Additional District Judge No.2 & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10638/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :: August 17, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj for the petitioner. Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Caveator for respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for taking the documents on record, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for specific performance of agreement dated 01.11.2008. According to respondent No.2, the property in dispute was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs.13,00,101/- and out of which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- were paid by respondent No.2 on 11.01.2008. According to the petitioner, she filed her written statements claiming that the plaintiff was never ready to perform his part of 2 contract and stated that despite various requests made by the appellant, the respondent No.2, the plaintiff did not pay the remaining consideration. During the pendency of the suit, one application was filed by the appellant for bringing on record certain documents namely, judgment dated 21.10.2007, agreement dated 05.02.2008, FIR dated 06.05.2005 and other documents relating to the loan regarding vehicle No.RJ-14-TC- 7674, the original blank stamp paper dated 11.01.2008, and the receipt of amount paid to Vijay Soni. The plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed reply and denied the facts alleged in the application. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Court below dismissed the application filed by the appellant vide its order dated 11.05.2010. Hence, this petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the written statements itself, the petitioner has contended that time was of essence of the contract. Since the documents namely judgment dated 21.10.2007 passed, for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, against her son, the agreement dated 05.02.2008, a FIR dated 06.05.2005 and other documents regarding the loan for vehicle No.RJ 14-TC-7674, the original blank stamp dated 11.01.2008 and the receipt of amount paid to Mr. Vijay Soni are relevant to make out a case that the petitioner was selling her property under duress, therefore, all 3 these documents are essential for deciding the case. On the other hand, Mr. Prahlad Sharma appearing as a caveator on behalf of respondent No.2, has contended that the documents which the petitioner is trying to bring on record were readily available with the petitioner when the petitioner filed her written statement on 26.07.2008. Moreover, the story being raised by the petitioner does not find even a whisper in the written statement submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has noticed the fact that the petitioner is trying to narrate the facts, which did not find any mention in the written statement. Since the documents, mentioned above, were readily available with the petitioner prior to her filing the written statement, the petitioner should have mentioned the facts and the relevant documents to make out a case that time was, indeed, of essence of the contract. The petitioner has not given any cogent reasons as to why neither the facts, nor these documents, above mentioned, were mentioned in the written 4 statement. Moreover, these documents do not throw any light on the controversy involved in the suit. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-