1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Hanuman Singh Verma V/s. Sushil Kumar Sharma & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9885/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :: July 27, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Rajesh Mootha for the Petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First class (West) Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby he has dismissed the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2, Ramchandra Verma. The facts of the case are that a civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, Sushil Kumar Sharma, against the petitioner and respondent No.2, Ramchandra Verma. In the suit, the plaintiff pleaded that he had purchased a plot No.152, Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur from defendant No.3, Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. Earlier the said plot was allotted to one Sundarlal Devpura. Later on, it was transferred to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that after taking the possession of the plot, he constructed the boundary walls. Later on he was transferred to Jodhpur and subsequently he left the plot as it was. When the plaintiff started construction on the plot, the petitioner and respondent 2 No.2 came to the site and started quarreling with him. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in his favour. In the suit, it has also been prayed that the plaintiff may also be declared the legal owner of the plot in dispute. The petitioner and respondent No.2 filed their written statements and refuted the entire claim made by the plaintiff. They contended that the plaintiff has prepared and obtained a fabricated patta of the plot, and on the basis of the said patta, the plaintiff is not the legal owner. Defendant No.3 did not appear before the Court and ex-parte order was passed against them. On 21.01.2009, the petitioner and respondent No.2 submitted an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act before the Court below. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application. After hearing both the parties, the learned Court below, vide its order dated 18.05.2010, dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to give any cogent reasons for dismissing the application. Moreover, in case, the documents were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it would help the Court in reaching a just decision. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for rejecting the said application. According to the learned Magistrate, the petitioner did not deny and did not challenge the veracity and validity of the document in his written statement. Moreover, despite the fact that D.W.3 was 3 cross-examined on 14.12.2006, yet from 14.12.2006 till 21.01.2009 i.e., for a period of three years, the petitioner maintained studied silence about the genuineness of the patta. It is only when the matter is scheduled for final arguments, and repeatedly dates have been taken by the parties for over two years, an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed. The conduct of the petitioner clearly proves that the petitioner is desperately trying to linger on the trial. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-