BELA M.TRIVEDI - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23th May, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD) Magistrate No.3, Kota (hereinafter referred as the "trial court"), whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner -defendant filed under Order VIII of CPC.
(2.) The short facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner -defendant in the trial court, on various grounds as enumerated in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner -defendant filed an application under Order viii read with Section 151 of CPC imploring the court to take certain documents on record. The learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that these documents were not related to the pleadings of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction by way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents which are relevant to the suit can be filed under order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC even at the later stage, but with the leave of the court. The learned trial court has wrongly observed that the said documents were not related to the suit, hence, the impugned order being contrary to law deserves to be set aside. He has cited the decision of Kalu Ram & ors. versus om Prakash & Anr. reported in, 2008 (2) DNJ (Raj) 875, in support thereof.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order and submitted the same being just and proper did not warrant any intervention.;