1 CWPNo.5035/2006 Ram Narain Vs. Mangi Lal & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5035 Of 2006. Ram Narain son of Shri Bhagirath. VERSUS Mangi Lal son of Shri Kalyan & Others Date of Order :::: 04/08/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Vijay Yadav, Counsel for the Petitioner. None present for the respondent No.1 plaintiff Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Alok Sharma, Counsel for the respondent No-2 UIT Kota. Per Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against the order dated 01.05.2006 (Annexure-5), by which the application submitted by the petitioner for production of the documents filed, along with the said application on 23.11.2005 for taking on record the aforesaid documents has been rejected vide order dated 01.05.2006. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the present suit, which is one for permanent injunction relates to a 2 CWPNo.5035/2006 Ram Narain Vs. Mangi Lal & Others piece of land known as plot No.100-A situated at Kachhi Basti, Keshav Pur, Kota in respect of which the plaintiff sought the relief that the allotment has been made by the U.I.T. Kota in favour of the petitioner and he is in possession of the same in pursuance of the aforesaid allotment as such the defendant be restrained from interfering in his possession as well as for restraining the U.I.T. Kota from making the allotment to any other person, including the defendant-petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed by the plaintiff alleging himself to be the lawful holder of the plot, in pursuance of the allotment made to the petitioner by the U.I.T. and has sought the relief, as aforesaid on the basis of the allotment. When the case was ripe for final arguments, the defendant-petitioner moved the present application purporting to be one Under Order 13 Rule 2, C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for production of the document, which has been rejected by the learned trial Court as being a belated application, though the provision of Order 13 r 2, C.P.C. stand deleted. At the very out set, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that in view of the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure by amending Act 1990 the provisions of Order 3 CWPNo.5035/2006 Ram Narain Vs. Mangi Lal & Others 13 Rule 2, C.P.C. stand repealed and as such the application cannot be said to be one under Order 13 Rule 2, C.P.C., but the same may be treated as one Under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3), C.P.C. read with the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151, C.P.C. I have perused the application submitted by the defendant, which is available as Annexure-3 on record, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the defendant-petitioner as well as the documents, filed along with the same, which are annexed to the said application as also the reply filed by the plaintiff to the said application and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Prima-facie, no exception could be taken to the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the application has been submitted at the fag end of the trial, which had been carrying on since the year 1989 and the application was filed in the year 2005 after closure of the evidence of the parties. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the nature of the documents, which even as per the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court are public documents having been obtained from the Office of the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, the authenticity of which cannot be doubted prima-facie, and which would also not require formal proof by adducing the evidence to prove the 4 CWPNo.5035/2006 Ram Narain Vs. Mangi Lal & Others same as well as the fact that the documents, prima facie appeared to be relevant for the adjudication of the dispute, inasmuch as, the case of the plaintiff is based upon his title on the basis of the allotment made to the plaintiff by the U.I.T. Kota of the land in dispute to the plaintiff vide allotment letter dated 18.03.1988. The defendant has sought to rely upon and produce the document before the learned trial Court the order of cancellation of the allotment and the supporting documents for proving the fact of cancellation of allotment of the plot to the plaintiff, along with the application. In the reply, which has been filed by the plaintiff to the said application, I do not find that the plaintiff has denied the fact with regard to the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff by the U.I.T. Kota by the documents, which have been filed, along with the application, Annexure-3. The plaintiff had an opportunity, while filing the reply, to contest the correctness of the allegation in the application and the authenticity of the documents, but the plaintiff has chosen not to do so and has relied upon other grounds for rejection of the application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the application as the documents in question were obtained by the defendant-petitioner only on 21.10.2005, as would be evident from the date, which is there 5 CWPNo.5035/2006 Ram Narain Vs. Mangi Lal & Others on the documents while certifying the same to be a true copy issued by the U.I.T. Kota. The aforesaid date of 21.10.2005 being after the closure of the evidence of the defendant, in the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the defendant was deliberately trying to delay the proceedings. While it is correct that the defendant should have take steps to obtain the aforesaid documents from the concerned authority well in time none the less since the U.I.T. Kota is also a party defendant to the suit, it was also the duty of the U.I.T. Kota to have filed the aforesaid documents and contested the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the allotment and the title of the plainitff over the piece of land in dispute and assisted the Court in arriving at a just decision. Be that as it may, I am inclined to accept this writ petition. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has submitted that the defendant does not wishes to lead any oral evidence and the affidavit, which has been filed, along with the application under Order 13 (2) read with Section 151, C.P.C. may be considered in supported of the same and the documents may be exhibited and admitted in evidence subject to any cross examination by the other party. In view of the above, it is directed that the learned trial Court would take the aforesaid piece of evidence on record. However, the learned trial Court would afford an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross examine the defendant petitioner and to 6 CWPNo.5035/2006 Ram Narain Vs. Mangi Lal & Others lead evidence in rebuttal, in case the plaintiff wants to lead any evidence in rebuttal both documentary and oral. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/