Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-defendants No. 1 to 3 have prayed for quashing order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the District Judge, Jaisalmer in Civil Suit No. 157/2009, whereby, the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer allowed the applications filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 dated 19.9.2011 and 12.10.2011, by which, original record of file No. 100/1971 and 197/1971 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer and file No. 18/10 (93/99) of the SDO, Jaisalmer along with file No. 1/70 of the Land Records Officer, Jaisalmer were requisitioned and the plaintiff is permitted to use the documents whose certified copies have been produced for the purpose of cross-examination.

2. As per facts of the case, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction on the ground that he is sole heir and successor of Ex-Ruler Maharaja Girdhar Singh and Maharaja Raghunath Singh under the custom governing the succession as the Rule of Primogeniture. In the suit, reply and counter-claim for partition were filed by the petitioner-defendants and after framing issues the plaintiff produced his ocular as well as docu-mentary evidence And, after closing of the plaintiff's evidence on 20.8.2011, the defendant Devraj Singh produced his affidavit in examination-in-chief.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that before recor-ding statement of defendant Devraj two applications were filed on 19.9.2011 and 12.10.2011 respectively requesting therein for summoning the above-mentioned documents for the purpose of cross-examination. Reply to both the applications were filed and it was specifically pleaded that as per mandatory provisions of O. 7 R. 14, CPC the plaintiff is required to produce all the documentary evidence which are in possession and power and, upon which, he sues. Where the plaintiff sues or relies upon the document in his possession or power in support of his claim he shall enter such document in a list and shall produce in the Court along with the plaint presented and, at the same time, shall deliver the document and copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

4. Further, as per the amended Civil Procedure Code, if a document which ought to be produced in the Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented or entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly shall not without leave of Court receive in evidence on his behalf at the time of hearing of the suit. Further, it is submitted that there was complete embargo on the power of the Court that any such document could not be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at a later stage; but, there is only one exception in the amended Civil Procedure Code whereby such document can be received in evidence with leave of the Court which the Court shall grant in genuine cases only.

5. The crux of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that mandatory provisions are ignored by the Trial Court while deciding the applications filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The rigour of the rule does not apply to documents which are sought to be adduced as a corroborative evidence in support of the claim made in the plaint or for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness or handed over to a witness to refresh his memory. In this case, admittedly the plaintiff did not produce nor entered in the list of the document all the requisite documents for which he had applied for summoning, therefore, the finding given by the Trial Court while allowing the applications are totally illegal and order impugned deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the finding given by the Trial Court in impugned order dated 19.10.2011 is arbitrary and perverse because the Trial Court passed the order without considering the pre-conditions enumerated under Order 13 Rule 10(2), CPC. Under the said pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document