The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, along with the relevance of documentary evidence to the subject matter of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner assails order dated 06.02.2018, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.(I), Amb, District Una in Civil Suit No. 69/07 RBT No. 122/14/07, titled as Kedar Nath versus Sat Parkash and others vide which application filed by the present petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code stands dismissed by the learned Court below.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petitioner are as under:- Predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has filed a civil suit which is pending adjudication before learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.(I) Amb, District Una. The suit is for declaration that plaintiff and proforma defendants (which includes the present petitioner) are owners in possession of land measuring 0-99-77 Hects., situated in Mouza Ghanari Dadwalan, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.,(hereinafter referred to as 'suit land’) details whereof are given in the suit and that defendants No. 1 to 4 have no right title or interest over the same and mutation No. 509 and 173 entered and sanctioned in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 in respect of half share of deceased Smt. Ram Rakhi out of the suit land, dated 28.12.2016 are wrong, illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs as also proforma defendants. This suit, admittedly, has been filed way back in the year 2007.

3. In June 2017, petitioner filed an application under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for leave of the Court to place on record in evidence a registered Gift Deed, scribed on 15.05.1963 and registered on 16.05.1963, purportedly by late Smt. Ram Rakhi in his favour as also the plaintiffs and other proforma defendants.

4. It was mentioned in the application that Smt. Ram Rakhi had got scribed a Gift Deed on 15.5.1963, which was registered on 16.5.1963. Same pertained to land other than the suit land. The document could not earlier be placed on record as it was lying in a Trunk and due to inadvertence it could not be placed on record at the time of filing of the written statement.

5. Contesting defendants opposed the application. It was mentioned in the reply that as the applicant had not filed any written statement and therefore also he could not be permitted to place on record any documents beyond pleadings.

6. Vide impugned Order, learned Court below has rejected the application inter alia on the ground that as the Gift Deed pertained to land other than the suit land, it was not necessary to bring the same on record for the decision of the suit. Learned Court held that even if it was presumed that the Gift Deed was executed by Smt. Ram Rakhi then also as the same pertained to some other land than the suit land, it was neither relevant, nor applicant could demonstrate as to how the document was relevant to decide the suit before the Court.

7. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has challenged the order so passed by the learned Court below by way of this petition.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned Order as also the documents placed on record.

9. Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by defendants and is not produced, shall not be received in evidence on behalf of the defendants at the time of hearing of the suit without leave of the Court.

10. In the present case, the petitioner has not filed any written statement to the suit. The reason for the same, but obvious appears to be that the interest of the plaintiff as also the petitioner- (defendant) is the same. Petitioner stands impleaded in the suit as a proforma defendant.

11. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that in the absence of there being any written statement on record on behalf of the defendant, Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code will not per se come