Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 20th February, 2014 declining the prayer of the petitioner for production of rules and regulations of the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda on the basis of which building plans were sanctioned in favour of Raj Rani and Kiran Bala, the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The Municipal Corporation, Bathinda is arrayed as the 1st defendant. The application was filed on 31st January, 2014 for production of rules and regulations governing the sanction of the building plans of the proposed construction by the 2nd and 3rd defendants which has been dismissed by the trial Court for the reason that the application is a delaying tactic of the plaintiff to prolong the proceedings and moreover the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and is an old one falling in Action Plan 2013 -14. I have already commented on Action Plan 2013 -14 and issued certain guidelines to trial Courts meant for speedy disposal of old cases to not to use the action plans formulated by this Court as reason for denial of prayers made in interlocutory applications in civil suits. In C.R. No. 1556 of 2014 titled Bharat Rajput v. Amrik Singh Aulakh and others, decided on 03rd March, 2014 I had observed as follows: - "However, much would depend on the wisdom and experience of each court tried and tested in each case before it on its daily board. And in that we have faith. But no court is justified in putting such a thing as Action Plan 2013 -14 on the order sheet as justification or one of the operative reasons which has led to the impugned order. This would unnecessarily fuel suspicion of injustice in the minds of the litigating public with eyebrows needlessly raised apart from fanning further litigation adding to the dockets of this Court oftentimes compelling interference. Interlocutory applications should be dealt with on merits."
(2.) THE application for production of rules and regulations of which the court can, in any case take judicial notice was not opposed by private respondent/defendants Nos. 2 and 3 but was opposed by the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda that such an application would delay proceedings if the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the factum of sanctioning of buildings plans was revealed only during cross -examination of Jagan Nath, Junior Engineer, Municipal Corporation who appeared as a defence witness. In his cross -examination he stated that the site/building plans submitted by Raj Rani and Kiran Bala have been sanctioned as per rules and regulations. As to what those rules and regulations are has been left in animated suspension and it would serve the interest of justice that the trial judge ought to summon the record on the basis of which the building plans of Raj Rani and Kiran Bala are stated to have been sanctioned together with the rules and regulations applicable. From the site and building plans duly sanctioned a clear picture may emerge of the lay of the land and whether there is any stepping over or encroachment on the petitioner's land and may set the dispute at rest as to possession/ownership of the respective properties including the suit land. Since the private respondents have not contested the application, therefore, this Court finds no occasion to issue notice to them of this petition as they appear to have no serious right of hearing and by conduct have foregone the right to oppose not having contested he application before the trial Court. The Municipal Corporation also cannot be heard to oppose such a prayer in order to cover up actions which may be lawful or unlawful only record and the rules and regulations can reveal. The Municipal Corporation should by itself have produced the record on the basis of which the building plans were sanctioned and not have sprung a surprise on the petitioner during cross -examination of its witness.
(3.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is that the title of the suit property lies with him but the building plans as discovered have been sanctioned in favour of the private defendants on the property of the petitioner. This is the petitioner's say. However, no opinion can be expressed by this Court on this issue as the question lies within the domain of the trial Judge in the first instance to return findings after appreciating the evidence on record including the material sought in the application. However, the rules and regulations on the basis of which building plans have been sanctioned is a material fact and would form an essential component in the ultimate judgment and the trial Court infact should be looking forward to allowing all relevant facts to be brought on record in order to dispense effective justice from all angles. The prayer in the application is innocuous and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if it were allowed. Therefore, the order dated 20th February, 2014 is not found sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court may now do one of two things. One, it may either call upon the defendant -Municipal Corporation to place attested copies of the rules and regulations relating to sanction of building plans within the area of the Municipal Corporation or, two, to permit the petitioner to summon the dealing hand from the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda to produce the rules and regulations and accept their attested copies on record. The reasoning of the trial Court that the application is a delaying tactic or is aimed at prolonging the proceedings is not tenable in the facts and circumstances. The delay, if any, which will be caused will be short -lived as it takes no more than a single day to produce the desired record for the Court to examine its worth. This will be no more than production of documents. No additional issue would be framed. No further evidence would be permitted to be led by the petitioner on the admittance of the rules, regulations or bye laws relating to sanction of building plans. One effective opportunity be allowed to the petitioner for the purpose for production of dealing hand/witness well acquainted with the facts of the case by summoning such person from the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda with the original record. The petition is allowed in the above terms and directions are accordingly issued as above.;