Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed against the order dated 20.8.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FT), Ajmer Camp Kishangarh in Civil Appeal No.6/2007, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioners to produce the documents on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.2 (original plaintiff) had filed the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land on the ground that he had purchased the same from Gram Panchayat, Silora in the year 1969 and the Gram Panchayat had issued Patta in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendants i.e. present petitioners had encroached over the said land. The petitioners-defendants had resisted the suit by filing the written statement and further stating interalia that the Gram Panchayat had issued Patta No.159 dated 7.1.1968 in favour of their father and that after the death of their father, the plot was distributed amongst the brothers. The said suit came to be decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 25.1.2003, against which, the petitioners-defendants have filed the appeal being No. 6/2007 before the appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking on record the documents namely the order of Gram Panchayat dated 18.6.1979, amended site-plan and original Patta. The said application came to be rejected by the appellate court by the impugned order, against which the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.
(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said documents could not be produced by the petitioners as the said documents, more particularly, original pata was in custody of one of the brothers i.e Jai Narain, and the other brothers did not have good terms with him, now, since they have good relations, the said brother has produced the said original documents which are very much relevant to the dispute involved in the appeal. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the documents sought to be produced could have been produced by the petitioners-defendants in the suit itself and now permitting such documents to be produced on record, would adversely effect his right. He also submitted that the Patta as such is not of the complete document and does not fully describe the property in question and therefore could not be said that the said Patta is relevant pertaining to the disputed land.;