Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the defendant No. 1 - petitioner assailing the order dt. 19.12.2012 passed by the trial Court by which it has allowed the applications dt. 22.05.2012 & 26.05.2012, filed by the defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 3 and plaintiff -respondent No. 2 respectively for return of documents i.e. the sale deed dt. 01.02.1997 and allotment letter dt. 06.02.1980 etc. and rejected the application dt. 28.05.2012 filed by the defendant No. 1 -petitioner for return of the allotment letter dt. 06.02.1980 and other documents. Brief facts of the case, as apparent from the file of the writ petition, are that a civil suit came to be filed on 21.03.1997 by the plaintiff -respondent No. 2 before the trial Court for declaration of ownership rights against the defendant No. 1 -petitioner and defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 3 and for declaring the sale deed dt. 01.02.1997, allegedly executed by the defendant No. 1 -petitioner in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 3 as null & void and for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant No. 1 -petitioner and defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 3 from interfering in possession of the suit property. The said suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment & decree dt. 27.04.2005 against which the plaintiff -respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Regular First Appeal before this Court but thereafter an application came to be filed on 01.05.2012 by the plaintiff respondent No. 2 and defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 3 to withdraw the said appeal. On the basis of the said application, permission was granted by this Court to withdraw the appeal and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt. 02.05.2012.
(2.) THEREAFTER the defendant -respondent No. 3 filed an application on 22.05.2012 before the learned trial Court for return of the documents i.e. the sale deed dt. 01.02.1997 and in the same manner, the plaintiff -respondent No. 2 also moved an application on 25.05.2012 before the trial Court for return of the documents i.e. the allotment letter dt. 06.02.1980 etc. The defendant No. 1 petitioner also filed an application on 28.05.2012 before the trial Court for return of the allotment letter dt. 6.2.1980 and other documents. Defendant No. 1 -petitioner filed a counter affidavit to both the applications filed by the plaintiff -respondent No. 2 and defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 3. The learned trial Court passed an order dt. 19.12.2012 and allowed the two applications dt. 26.5.2012 and 22.5.2012 filed by the defendant No. 2 - respondent No. 3 and plaintiff -respondent No. 2 respectively and ordered for returning the original documents to them but rejected the application dt. 28.05.2012 filed by the defendant No. 1 -petitioner. Hence, instant writ petition has been filed by the defendant No. 1 -petitioner assailing the order impugned dt. 19.12.2012 passed by the learned trial Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant No. 1 -petitioner contends that the Court below has committed a grave error, both in law and facts and the orders impugned, if allowed to stand, would inflict serious injury to the rights of the defendant No. 1 -petitioner. He submits that the declaratory suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent No. 2 was dismissed and it was held that he was not the legal owner of the suit property. He further submits that the sale deed dt. 01.02.1997, allegedly executed by the defendant No. 1 - petitioner in favour of defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 3 was, in -fact, never executed and thus, in such facts and circumstances, the Court below committed a jurisdictional error in ordering return of the documents to both i.e. the plaintiff -respondent No. 2 and the defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 3. He further drew attention of this Court towards the provisions of Order 13 Rule 9 CPC, specifically the proviso of the same. He submits that by force of the decree, the documents became useless and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Court below to order for return of such documents. He further stressed that the plaintiff -respondent No. 2, in connivance with the defendant No 2. respondent No. 3, withdrew the First Appeal No. 494/2005 on 1.5.2012 at the back of the defendant No. 1 -petitioner although the defendant No. 1 -petitioner was made a party -respondent to such an appeal. He submits that the defendant No. 1 -petitioner was the real owner of the property and he never sold it to the defendant No. 2 - respondent No. 3 or anybody else and hence, the documents, pertaining to the plot in question, ought to have been returned to its real owner i.e. the defendant No. 1 -petitioner and none -else. In support of his contentions, he relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Alphabettes Pvt. Ltd. v. Lohia Jute Press, : AIR 2004 Delhi 374; judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Juggi Lal Kamla Pat v. Ram Janki Gupta & Anr., : AIR 1962 Allahabad 407; judgment of Apex Court in the case of S.R. Ramaraj v. Special Court, Bombay, : AIR 2003 SC 3039; judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Silla Jagannadha Prasad v. Smt. Silla Lalitha Kumari, : AIR 1989 AP 8; judgment of Apex Court in the case of Surya Deo Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., : (2003) 6 SCC 675.;