1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10010/2007 {Vishal Shah Versus Smt. Kalawati & Others} Date of Order :: 27th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. J.P. Goyal for the petitioners Mr. B. L. Agarwal with Mr. Amit Gupta for the respondents no. 1 and 2 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. B.L. Agarwal appears for respondents no. 1 and 2. Respondent no.3 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession of the disputed property, wherein defendant filed their written statement and claimed adverse possession of the property. The petitioner filed an application on 15th February, 2007 for taking on record the certified copy of one sale deed, original Will and copy of map. The application was contested by the opposite party. The trial court rejected the application vide order dated 2nd November, 2007, which is impugned in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiff- 2 petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner contended that photocopy of these documents had already been filed on record alongwith the suit itself and they were also referred in the statement in the shape of affidavits, however, during the course of examination of witnesses, the documents could not be marked as they were not original and certified copies. In these circumstances, he has now filed an application alongwith certified copy / original documents, which should have been taken on record, but trial court committed an illegality in rejecting his application. It is further contended that opposite party has already cross-examined plaintiff's witness on these documents, therefore, he will not lead any evidence on these documents, but he simply wants that they may be taken on record and be exhibited in the case. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the `Will' relates to the year 1998, but no reason has been disclosed as to why it was not placed on record earlier. He further contended that the plaintiff wants to delay the proceedings, he 3 will again seek time for adducing more evidence in support of these documents. The trial court has rightly rejected the application. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order in the light of their submissions. The copies of documents are alleged to have been placed on record alongwith the suit itself. They have also been referred in the affidavits of plaintiff's witnesses. The opposite party has also cross-examined the plaintiff's witness on the said documents. The plaintiff has undertaken that he will not examine any more witness in support of these documents. The documents were not exhibited as they were not certified / original. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed this application with the prayer that they may be taken on record and be exhibited in the case. The documents appear to be material and relevant for the purpose of proper adjudication of the present case. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. So far as the delay of proceedings is concerned, the same can be compensated by awarding cost to defendants. 4 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd November, 2007 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application filed by the petitioner for taking these documents on record is allowed. The documents will be admitted in evidence and same will be exhibited on payment of cost of Rs. 3000/-, which will be paid to the defendants within a period of one month from today, failing which the same will not be admitted and exhibited in the case. 8. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1174/2007 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10010/2007 {Vishal Shah Versus Smt. Kalawati & Others} Date of Order :: 27th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. J.P. Goyal for the petitioners Mr. B. L. Agarwal with Mr. Amit Gupta for the respondents no. 1 and 2 BY THE COURT: Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK