v ‘f m, co Ho- S“%e/c V WI. W ................................................. ‘........W 200 WWW (W) Q9. 111mm mm (WW) mmfw‘aa‘ WWW WWW 28-1 -2008:- Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel The petitioners have prefer r the petitioners. this writ petition under Articie 227 of the iegality and correctness of the order Civil Judge, Class 2, Manendragarh, in Constitution of india questioning r dated 20‘“ July, 2007 passed by Civii Suit No.5-A/98, whereby iearn d Civii Judge has allowed the application of respondent No.1 herein tiled un er Order 8 Rule 1A (3) and Section 151 CPC with cost of Rs.1 OO/-. l have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Learned counsel for the petit ners submitted that in this case, suit was tiled in the year 1998 and written s atement was tiled by respondent No.1 on ‘ 29-1-99 whereas, application for ta ing documents on record was tiled in the year 2004. There is delay and no reasonable cause was shown by respondent No.1 fornon-productio of the documents at the time of tiling of written statement or framing of t e issues, therefore, order impugned is perverse. Having heard learned couns l for the petitioners, l have perused the impugned order in which it has bee mentioned that respondent No.1 herein tiled an application on 3-9-2004 i.e. after 5 years of tiling of written statement and submitted that documents in qu stion are partition deed and agreement & same were misplaced somewhere i the tiles. As and when those documents were traced out, he immediately s bmittecl the same. .. The trial Court has . reached to the conclusion that the d cuments are necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties be ause the petitioners herein tiled a suit for declaration of the disputed prop rty as joint family property whereas, /»~W"‘£espondent No.1 herein tiled an pplication that the property is not joint \ \I . \ _. \i l ‘?z a, y o e t , WW,W,W . C3N9$$° WW Wm (W) mmm mwiwm $ai1‘awa11éw property, as same has been partitimned. To support that, he has filed these documents. Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC e‘ rpraduce'd by the defendant when it progiuce without the leave of the conclusion that the documents are r between the parties. in View of the above, I am of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the Court below is based on sour committed any jurisdictional error. dismissed and it is hereby dismisset . wvisages that where the document is not ought to have been produced, he cannot Court. The Couit has reached to the ecessary for deciding the real controversy dyreasoning and the trial Court has not able to be The writ petition is, therefore, li Sd/— L.C. Bhadoo Judge