- (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated
(2.) 02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), Hanumangarh(for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the trial court has accepted the application of defendant Nos. 2, 6 and 7 under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner- plaintiff filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed before the trial court praying therein that the sale-deed executed in favour of Chetan Kaur dated 14.02.1980, which is registered on 16.4.1980; and the sale-deed executed in favour of Kartar Singh dated 14.02.1980, which is registered on 16.04.1980, may be cancelled. The defendants filed the written statements to the suit. Respondent No.2, 6 and 7 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC before the learned trial court for taking the documents viz. Jamabandi, Order dated 8.8.1980, whereby the application under section 212 Rajasthan Tenancy Act was dismissed, judgment dated 24.01.2001 and the original sale- deed on record. The plaintiff-petitioner filed reply to the application. After hearing the final arguments on the application, the trial court allowed the application vide order impugned dated 02.02.2012. Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 02.02.2012 passed by the trial court, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed this writ petition with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned dated 02.02.2012 is exfacie illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law as well as facts and against the material available on record. It is further contended that the learned trial court, while allowing the application of the respondent-defendants, has held that the point of dispute between the parties is whether the suit deserves to be dismissed being time barred and burden of proof is on the defendants. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the respondent-defendants nowhere mentioned in the application that the documents sought to be produced on record are related to the point of limitation. It is also contended that the documents, sought to be produced by the respondents No.2, 6 and 7 are not relevant to the suit. The order dated 08.08.1980 was passed as interim order and the revenue suit was decided on 06.02.1986 and the said order dated 08.08.1980 was merged in the judgment dated 06.02.1986.
(3.) IT is further contended that the suit of the petitioner is pending for last 08 years. The documents were in possession of the respondent-defendants but they had not produced deliberately at the relevant time. The cause of delay was that the documents were lying with Shri Om Prakash Modi-Advocate, who is a practicing lawyer in Hanumangarh District, the respondent- defendants, could take the documents from Shri Om Prakash Modi and file the same with the written documents. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court accepted the application of defendant Nos. 2, 6 and 7 under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC vide order impugned dated 02.02.2012. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned dated 02.02.2012. I have scanned through all the relevant documents placed on record. ;