Allowed

Urban Improvement Trust, Abu v. Mandhata Behera

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2022CW/2711/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to produce a Site Inspection Report and Jamabandi. It directed the trial court to admit the documents but allowed the respondent to cross-examine the witness relying on them.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.01.2021 was quashed and set aside; the proposed documents were directed to be taken on record.

Urban Improvement Trust, Abu Vs Mandhata… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2711/2021

¶3

Urban Improvement Trust, Abu, Through 1. Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Abu, Office - Danvav, Abu Road. 2. Chairman, Urban Improvement Trust, Abu, Office - Danvav, Abu Road.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mandhata Behera S/o Sh. Jadunath Behera, By Caste - Patra, Resident Of - Danvav, Post - Shantivan, Tehsil - Abu Rpad, District - Sirohi.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Surana

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

03/01/2022

¶12

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner-UIT has challenged the order dated 28.01.2021, passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Abu Road (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

¶13

The facts germane for the present purposes precisely narrated are, that the respondent instituted a suit challenging the notice dated 13.04.2018 while also seeking an injunction against the defendant (petitioner herein) that he may not interfere in the use and occupation of the disputed premises.

¶14

During the pendency of the suit, the defendant – UIT took two basic pleas; first, that the Gram Panchayat Akrabhatta did not have the jurisdiction to grant construction permission, as the land had vested in Urban Improvement Trust and secondly, that the

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-2711/2021]

¶17

land which is under petitioner’s possession on which construction is being raised is a ‘nala land’ on which construction cannot be raised.

¶18

During the pendency of such proceedings, when the matter reached the stage of defendant’s evidence, the defendant (petitioner herein) moved an application dated 10.09.2020 under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought leave of the trial Court to produce two documents, namely, mauka fard report (Site Inspection Report) dated 06.04.2018 and a copy of the Jamabandi (revenue record) of the land in question.

¶19

The trial Court rejected petitioner’s application inter alia observing that the Site Inspection Report dated 06.04.2018 was prepared by none other than an officer of the defendant Trust and, hence, the same ought to have been produced along with the written statement or at an earlier stage. 6. Challenging the order impugned, Mr. Mardia, learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioner’s application. Inviting Court’s attention towards the averments made in the application, more particularly in para No.2 of the application, he contended that it was the specific case of the petitioner that the copies of the documents in question were made available to the authorized officer on 16.03.2020 and, therefore, the same could not be filed earlier or with the written statement.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these documents are very relevant and are necessary for proper adjudication and effectual disposal of the lis involved in the case. 8. It was asserted that only one witness has appeared in the witness-box on behalf of the defendant UIT and other witness(es) is/are yet to be examined.

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CW-2711/2021]

¶23

Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent herein) submitted that the order impugned passed by the trial Court is perfectly just and valid. He highlighted that the Site Inspection Report dated 06.04.2018 had been prepared by none other than an officer of the UIT and, therefore, it ought to have been referred to or placed on record along with the written statement. Similarly, it was contended that the petitioner – UIT is seeking to place on record a copy of the Jamabandi (revenue record), which does not relate to the land in question and, therefore, both these documents cannot be taken on record.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the written statement filed and stand taken by the UIT, this Court is of the considered opinion that both these documents filed along with the application dated 10.09.2020, are required to be taken on record for proper, effective and complete disposal of the controversy or dispute between the parties. 11. The impugned order dated 28.01.2021 is, therefore, quashed and set aside.

¶25

Considering Mr. Surana’s submissions, liberty is, however, given to the plaintiff (respondent herein) to cross-examine the concerned witness who relies upon the Site Inspection Report and Jamabandi (revenue record) in accordance with law.

¶26

The plaintiff may also file some additional document(s) (if required) in support of his stand that the land, on which respondent is having possession and construction is being raised, is not covered by the jamabandi being taken on record. For this purpose, if required, the trial Court shall give permission to the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence confined to the relevant documents, if any filed.

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CW-2711/2021]

¶29

The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

92-skm/-

Urban Improvement Trust, Abu v. Mandhata Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urban Improvement Trust, Abu v. Mandhata Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shreenath Bstc School Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited Vs Union of India

Satpal Godara Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Harnimrat Kaur Vs the Union of India

Manjeet Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan