R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dt. 21.02.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner -plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, for handing -over possession and to declare the gift deed dt. 17.06.2005, and the sale deed dt. 26.03.2007 as illegal, null and void, against the respondents. In their reply, the respondent No. 2 had claimed that the alleged agreement to sell, between the petitioner and him, was actually a forged agreement as on the relevant date, i.e. on 02.06.2003, he was not even available in Jaipur. According to respondent No. 2, on 02.06.2003, he had left Jaipur by Jodhpur -Bikaner -Guwahati Express for Guwahati (Assam) where respondents No. 3 and 4, his daughter and son -in -law, were staying. During pendency of the proceedings, respondent No. 2 had submitted certain documents which were taken on record. In order to counter the stand taken by respondent No. 2 that he was unavailable in Jaipur on the relevant date, the plaintiff -petitioner produced certain documents alongwith an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC; he prayed that these documents should be taken on record. However, by order dt. 21.02.2013, the learned Judge dismissed the said application. Therefore the present petition before this Court.
(2.) MR . K.D. Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that under the Right to Information Act, he had inquired from the Railway Administration whether Jodhpur -Bikaner -Guwahati Express, the Train by which respondent No. 2 claimed to have traveled, had left Jaipur on 02.06.2003 or not. In its reply dt. 07.04.2011, the Railway Department informed him that no such Train had left Jaipur on 02.06.2003. According to the learned counsel, this document clearly falsifies the statement of respondent No. 2 that he had left Jaipur by the said Train on 02.06.2003. Thus, it was a material document which should have been taken on record. Moreover, he had further filed certain Income Tax Returns as well as the bank statement of SBBJ, Johari Bazar Branch, which clearly showed that respondent No. 2 had entered into certain financial transactions with the bank on 02.06.2003. According to him, these documents also prove the fact that respondent No. 2 was very much present in Jaipur on 02.06.2003. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the application. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Simlote, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has strenuously contended that the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the application as the Income Tax Return, as well as the Bank Statement were merely photostat copies. Moreover, the Income Tax Return could be filed by the respondent No. 2 even during his absence from Jaipur. Furthermore, even the Bank transactions can be held in his absence from Jaipur. Thus, these documents do not prove the fact that respondent No. 2 was available in Jaipur on 02.06.2003. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and the documents submitted alongwith the petition.;