- (1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 20. 10. 1992, passed by M. J. M. I Class, Bharatpur, in Civil Suit No. 303 of 1987, by which he dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioners submitted under Order 13, Rule 2 C. P. C. for taking certified copy of the compromise deed and the map on the record.
(2.) BRIEF relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant-non-petitioners from raising any constructions on the disputed joint chowk and the constructions which have been raised should be removed. Issues were framed on 8. 1. 1992. On 15. 10. 1992, the petitioners submitted an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC mentioning therein that at the time of filing the suit, the certified copy of the compromise-deed dated 22. 9. 1948, and of the Map dated 21. 10. 1965, were not available and as such they were not filed alongwith the map. These documents were traced out on 18. 10. 1992, at the time of Deepawali. It was further mentioned that these documents are necessary for decision of the case. It was prayed that they may be taken on record. This application was supported by an affidavit of petitioner Kailash Chand. No reply of this application was filed by the non-petitioners. The trial Court vide its order dated 20. 10. 1992, rejected the application only on the ground that the reasons given by the petitioner in their application are not satisfactory. I heard Mr. J. P. Goyal, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. C. Gupta, counsel for the Non-petitioners and have gone through the record and also the various judgements cited by them. Mr. Goyal, counsel for the petitioners submits that in Para Nos. 3, 6 and 7 of the plaint, there is a reference of the compromise dated 22. 9. 1948. He further submits that after the framing of the issues no evidence of the parties has been recorded as yet. The trial Court without considering all these things rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that the reasons given by the petitioners in their application are not satisfactory. Mr. Goyal submits that the affidavit of the petitioners has not been controverted by the opposite side and as such the affidavit should be presumed to be true by the trial Court. In support of these arguments, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments reported in Bharosilal and Another vs. Mool Chand (1), Municipal Council Bharatpur vs. Gokul Chand And Another (2) and Bharosilal and Another vs. Mool Chand (3 ). On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that the order passed by the trial court is discretionary one and as such no revision is maintainable against the said order. I support of this argument, he placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway (4 ). In the case of Municipal Council, Bharatpur (supra), this Court held that the documents were certified copies of judgements of various Courts and related to the land in dispute itself. Under these circumstances, the revision was allowed and the documents were taken on record. In the case of Bharosilal (supra), the facts were that the documents were not filed alongwith the written statement but reference of that was made in the written statement. Before the evidence was started, the defendant filed the documents alongwith an application under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. with the allegation that at the relevant time the documents were not traceable. This application was rejected by the trial Court. Against the aforesaid order, the defendant filed a revision. This Court allowed the revision on the ground that there was no apparent reason for the defendant to withhold the documents when reference was made in the written statement. It was further held that the plaintiff was not going to be prejudiced on account of production of the said documents as the documents were genuine.
(3.) IN the present case also, the compromise deed has also been mentioned in the plaint itself and Issue No. 2 has already been framed by the trail Court in this connection. The document is a certified copy of compromise deed. The map is also certified copy. Evidence has not been started of the parties as yet. The defendant has enough time to rebut these documents. In the case reported in 1992 (1) WLC (Raj.) 643 (3), it has been held that revision is maintainable against the order rejecting the application submitted under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 (supra), is not on the point and is totally distinguishable. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner in arbitrary way and in case the said order is allowed to stand, it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners as the suit is at the initial stage. Consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order dated 20. 10. 1992, passed by the trial Court and allow the application submitted by the petitioners under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. ;