- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is a revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14-2-1990, rejecting their application submitted under O. 13 Rule 2 read with Sec. 151 C. P. C. , taking five documents on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents are genuine and certified copies were obtained from the Revenue Deptt. He further submitted that the evidence has not been started as yet. He states that no prejudice will be caused to the defendants in case these documents are taken on record. The counsel for the non-petitioners submits that the documents were already in possession of the petitioners and they did not give any sufficient reason as to why the documents were not filed earlier. He further submitted that the suit is pending since 1980 and the petitioners want to prolong the litigation. He further submitted that no reason has been mentioned in the application as to why the petitioners could not obtain certified copies and filed the same in time. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners alongwith their application, as mentioned above, submitted the following five documents : - (1) Copy of the order dated 9-9-1985, passed by the S. D. O. Sawai Madhopur, in Civil Suit No. 731/1981; (2) Copy of trace-map; (3) Copy of the 'jamabandi' of Samvat Year 2041 to 2044 of Gram Karmoda, relating to Khasra Numbers 631, 632 and 661; (4) Copy of 'jamabandi' of the Samvat Year 2041 to 2044 relating to Khasra Nos. 650 and 634; and (5) 'jamabandi' of Khevat No. 230/4, 76/4 and 230/5, 76/5 of Samvat Year 2041 to 2044. The document of Sl. No. 1 was obtained by the petitioner 6n 4- 12-1985 and document at Sl. No. 2 was obtained by them on 6-1- 1987 and they were in possession of the petitioners but the petitioners neither produced them in court in time nor gave any sufficient reason for the non-production of the same.
(3.) IN this view of matter, the Court did not commit any error of jurisdiction by rejecting the application of the petitioner in respect of these documents, The copies of the rest of the documents were made available to the petitioners only a few months back before the filing of the application and as such it cannot be said that these documents were available with the petitioners when the issues were framed. These documents are genuine documents. They were not in possession of the petitioners at the time when the issues were framed. The evidence of the parties has not been started as yet. In the interest of justice, I think it proper that these documents may be taken on record on a cost of Rs. 500/ -. Consequently the revision is allowed in part with no order as to costs. . ;