1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.382/2008 PRAKASH MAL V. AMRESH KUMAR & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 03/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Mukul Angiras, for Petitioner (s). Mr. J.P.Joshi, for Respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order at Annexure-7 passed by the Court-below. The grievance of the petitioner is that as many as thirty documents were submitted by the non-petitioner along with rejoinder, though rejoinder of the non-petitioner was not allowed to be taken on record. However, when those documents were filed, along with affidavit, in the shape of evidence, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner, raising grievance regarding admissibility of the documents and affidavit. This Court gave a direction to the Court-below that only those documents should be taken into consideration which is in consonace to the pleadings on record. The outcome of the said order is that the documents which are not submitted in consonance to the 2 pleadings on record would not be taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court earlier, necessary exercise should have been undertaken by the Tribunal below by placing documents in Part 'D' which are not in consonance to the pleadings, however court below kept the issue open for decision at the time of final hearing thus by virtue of which it is not becoming clear as on which documents cross-examination of the witness is to be made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that necessarily, the relevance of the documents can be considered only at the final arguments of the case, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be maintained. After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the paties, the facts which are in not in dispute that this Court passed an order to the effect that only documents submitted along with the affidavit by the non- petitioner would be considered which are found to be in consonace to the pleadings on record. The only issue 3 remains is as to whether the documents exist in consonace to the pleadings or not, is an issue which is to be decided at the time of hearing and such exercise should be taken at this stage itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the document not in consonance is kept in Part 'D' pursuant to the directions of this Court at this stage, then he would be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses as per the documents allowed to be kept on record and even in arguments petitioner will not remain in confusion as to which documents are going to be considered by the court and which of the documents would be kept outside the scope of consideration. Court below can keep documents in Part 'D' which are not found to be in consonance to the pleadings. I find that what has been prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is nothing but compliance of the order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion, it was otherwise incumbent upon the part of the Court-below to comply with the direction and to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Surprisingly, despite of the passing of the order by this Court, necessary compliiance has not been 4 made which otherwise giving room for raising grievance by the petitioner as has been raised hereinabove and are othewise found to be justified. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the Court-below is directed to comply with the direction of this Court passed on the earlier occasion in Writ Petition No.1595/2007 and then proceed with the matter. The Court-below is further directed to expedite the hearing and efforts should be made to complete the proceeding, prefereably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd