JUDGMENT

ORDER

Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. - The matter comes up in an interim application number 3116 of 2017, with a prayer for vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 22nd September, 2013. However, in view of the fact that the controversy is within a narrow compass; the matter was taken up for final adjudication, at this stage, with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the plaintiff/respondents instituted the suit proceedings for declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 24th July, 2006, while praying for possession and damages along with permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendants (for short "petitioners"), submitted their written statement on 10th August, 2009, resisting the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents with the statement that the sale deed dated 9th December, 1959, is a forged document on the basis of which suit proceedings have been instituted while seeking a declaration and cancellation of the sale deed dated 24th July, 2006. It is not in disputed that an application under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"), was instituted by the petitioners on 9th March, 2016, with a prayer to take on record certain documents to be received in evidence. The application was resisted by the plaintiff/respondents, which has been declined vide impugned order dated 4th August, 2016, of which the petitioners are aggrieved of.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the writ application, asserted that in the written statement, the petitioners have specifically denied the averments of the plaint stating that the so-called sale deed dated 9th December, 1959, could not have been executed by Tara Devi as a widow affixing her thumb impression for her husband (Srilal), was very much alive. Further, Tara Devi was not an illiterate lady and used to affix her signatures, and therefore, the sale deed dated 9th December, 1959, is a false and fabricated document.

5. Referring to the contents of the application under Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of CPC, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Pawan Kumar is son of Tara Devi, who furnished the relevant information and documents, which were sought to be brought on record by the petitioners through the application, which has been declined. In order to substantiate his stand, a reference has been made to a document reflecting signature of Tara Devi (Annexure- 5).

6. Learned counsel has also referred to an adoption deed, which has been placed on record as Annexure-6, from where it is reflected that Pawan Kumar son of Tara Devi, has gone into adoption to Rameshwar Lal, father of Tara Devi, i.e. grandfather (maternal) of Pawan Kumar. The adoption deed appears to have been executed on 13th December, 1962. Permanent Account Number (PAN) of Pawan Kumar reflects his date of birth as 15th December, 1960. Thus, in the backdrop of the documents aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Tara Devi, was not a widow on 9th December, 1959, as the son - Pawan Kumar, was born to her on 15th December, 1960.

7. Delay in institution of the application is sought to be explained with the statement that these documents, which are sought to be brought on record were not in the power and possession of the petitioners as they were made available by none else but Pawan Kumar son of Tara Devi. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of this Court in the case of Madan Lal and Anr. vs. Rent Tribunal, Alwar and Anr.: 2006 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 820, and in the case of Moti Lal vs. Lrs of Gullu Khan and Ors.: 2010 WLC (Raj.) UC 232.

8. Per contra; Mr. Rahul Kamwar resisting the prayer while supporting the impugned order dated 4th August, 2016, would submit that the Court below committed no illegality much less gross illegality while dec