1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8429/2008 (Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board & Others Versus Ashok Kumar & Another) 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4381/2008 (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Versus Ashok Kumar & Others) Date of Order :: 26th August, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri R.A. Katta ) Counsel for the with ) petitioner(s) Shri Inderjeet Singh ) Shri R.P. Garg Counsel for the respondent(s) BY THE COURT: Both the writ petitions are directed against the impugned order dated 1st November, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindaun City, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of finally. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent no. 1-Ashok Kumar filed a suit for recovery against defendant- appellants and during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC with the prayer that directions may be issued to the defendants to produce the stock register for the period from October, 1992 to 30th June, 1993 granting agreement of 2 contract and Schedule-G. The trial court allowed the application and directed the defendants to produce the stock register. Since the directions were not complied with, therefore, plaintiff filed an application to struck off the defence and the same was allowed vide order dated 17th April, 1999. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1104/1999 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 20th July, 2005; the impugned order dated 17th April, 1999 was set-aside and defendants were permitted to file the stock register within a period of two weeks or on the next date fixed in the lower court, whichever is later, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/-. It appears that the defendants failed to produce the original stock register within a period of two weeks. Subsequently on 29th October, 2007, the defendants moved an application along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with original stock register to take the same on record as per the direction of the High Court. The trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 1st November, 2007, which is under challenge in both the writ petitions preferred 3 by the defendants. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that due to fault of some officers of the appellants, the stock register could not be produced in the court, for which the appellants have already taken disciplinary action and they have served charge sheets to three different persons. The document has now already been filed and the same is relevant. The plaintiff also shown relevancy of this document in his first application, therefore, in the interest of justice the application be allowed. So far as delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they will make the payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- as consolidated amount in both the petitions to the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today. The learned counsel for the respondents contested the writ petition and contended that way back on 20th July, 2005 this court passed a specific direction that stock register will be produced within a period of two weeks or on the next date fixed in the trial court, whichever is later and the present application was filed after a delay of more than two years. The delay could not have been 4 condoned by the trial court as time limit was fixed by this court. In these circumstances, the order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and no interference in it is called for. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned order dated 1st November, 2007 and also the earlier order dated 20th July, 2005 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1104/1999. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that vide order dated 20th March, 1998, the defendants were directed to produce the stock register, but they failed to produce the same, therefore, their defence was struck off. However, the said order striking out the defence was set-aside by this Court and two weeks' time was allowed to produce the stock register. The said order was not complied with, but, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the delay in not producing the stock register occurred on account of negligence on the part of officers of the petitioner i.e. Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board and they have already taken action against all the defaulting officers by 5 serving a charge sheet against them. From the facts stated by learned counsel for both the parties, it is clear that there is negligence on the part of the petitioners. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the stock register is a relevant document in the present matter and will be required for proper adjudication of the case. The plaintiff himself moved an application in the trial court that it is relevant document and defendants be directed to produce it. The application was allowed and defendants were directed to produce it. The defendants have now produced the same document in the trial court on 29th October, 2007 along-with an application. They also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Although the trial court was not competent to condone the delay, but so far as this Court is concerned, the explanation of the petitioners can be considered for condonation of delay as time was granted by this Court. After considering all the facts and circumstances, particularly the relevancy of the document, I am of the view that ends of justice would meet in case the delay in filing the application is condoned and application of 6 the petitioners be allowed and document i.e. stock register already produced, be taken on record on payment of cost. Apart-from above, it is also relevant to mention that no progress in the suit has taken place and since after passing of order dated 20th July, 2005 by this Court the case is still fixed for plaintiff's evidence. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred the certified copy of the proceedings of the trial court dated 24th January, 2008, 21st February, 2008 and 28th March, 2008, which show that suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence, thereafter this Court, while issuing notice of this petition to respondents vide order dated 6th May, 2008 stayed the further proceedings of the suit pending before the trial court. Therefore, it appears that suit is still pending and is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence only, therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents in case application is allowed and document is allowed to be taken on record. Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 1st November, 2007 passed by the trial court is set-aside. Both the applications filed by the 7 petitioners dated 29th October, 2007 are allowed; and the document i.e. stock register filed by the petitioners is taken on record at the cost of Rs. 5000/-, as agreed by learned counsel for the petitioners, which will be deposited in the trial court by way of draft in the name of plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today and the same will be handed over to him or his counsel immediately thereafter. It is made clear that in case the amount of cost is not paid within the time prescribed, then both the applications dated 29th October, 2007 filed by the petitioners will be deemed to have been dismissed. So far as these writ petitions are concerned, the parties are directed to bear their own cost. In view of above, the stay application no. 1771/2008 filed along-with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8429/2009 also stands disposed of. A copy of this order be placed on record in connected file. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK/