Decided on February 26,2013

Amba Prasad Atrey Appellant


V.K.BIST, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Rishikesh, District Dehradun as well as the order dated 18.01.2007 passed by District Judge, Dehradun.
(3.) IN the year 2002, the plaintiffs/respondents instituted Suit No. 762 of 2002 'Dharamshala Shambhubara Trust and other vs. Amba Prasad Atrey and others in respect of the property situate at Ghat Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun for eviction of the defendants/petitioners and respondent no.10 from the property in question. The defendants/petitioners moved an application (paper no. 73 c/2) alongwith counter claim (paper no. 74 c/2) claiming their ownership over the property in question. The said application was rejected with the observation to file separate suit. The order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun was upheld by the High Court. Thereafter, the defendants/petitioners filed another Suit No. 467 of 2006 'Amba Prasad Atrey and others vs. Dharamshala Shambhubara Trust and others before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun for declaration of their ownership over the property in dispute. The defendants/petitioners also filed 57 certified copies of various documents, procured by them from O.S. No. 467 of 2006 as well as from Nagar Palika, Rishikesh, District Dehradun alongwith an application (paper no. 100 c/2) in Original Suit No. 762 of 2002 'Dharamshala Shambhubara Trust and other vs. Amba Prasad Atrey and others. Against the said application, objection was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. The Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Rishikesh rejected the application of the defendants/ petitioners bearing paper no. 100 c/2 vide order dated 22.12.2006. Thereafter, Civil Revision No. 12 of 2006 was preferred by the defendants/petitioners, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 18.01.2007. Aggrieved by the said orders, instant petition has been filed by the defendants/petitioners. The application paper no. 100 c/2 moved by the defendants/petitioners was rejected by the Courts below on the ground of laches on the part of the defendants/ petitioners. The Courts below found that the defendants/ petitioners have not disclosed sufficient reasons for the undue delay in moving the said application and also for filing the documents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, in fact the Courts below have erred in holding that the application 100 c/2 has been moved deliberately with the ulterior motive to prolong the proceedings. He submits that the order impugned have been passed without considering the application of the defendants/petitioners, though the petitioners have clearly mentioned that original documents were filed in Suit No. 467 of 2006 and due to the very reason, certified copies of the original documents are being filed alongwith the application 100 c/2, which are necessary to reach to a just decision of the case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.