- (1.) The petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2 are aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2 for comparing the documents from original and applications under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking certain documents on record.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Prashant Parashar filed a civil suit for injunction against the petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2 pleading therein that he is a permanent resident of Pushkar town. He further claimed that his profession is Teerth Purohitai in which he has been engaged in for the last ten years. Since he is a Brahmin, since he earns his income from doing the work of carrying out ceremonies to be performed at the Pushkar Ghat, he does not have any other source of income to maintain his family. He further submitted that on 28.3.2010 when he along with certain pilgrims reached the Brahma Ghat, the appellant-defendant No. 2 and other persons claiming to belonging to the Trust, prevented him from carrying out the religious ceremonies. He further claimed that when he requested appellant-defendant No.2 to issue an identity card, they declined to do so. Since he is being prevented from carrying out and from pursuing his profession, he filed this civil suit for permanent injunction. The appellant filed the written-statement. Subsequently, the testimonies have been recorded and the trial has proceeded almost till the fag end. The petitioners filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC whereby they requested that a register containing certain documents dealing with the rules, regulations and working of Shamlat Committee as well as dealing with the grandfather of petitioner-defendant No.2, who was the President of the Shamlat Committee, should be taken on record. By order dated 20.1.2014, the learned Judge dismissed their application. Hence this petition before this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that two applications were filed by the petitioners, one on 29.11.2013 and the other on 4.1.2014. Through both these applications certain documents relating to the Shamlat Committee, which was formed in 1904, were being brought on record. Since it was a case of the petitioners that in 1904 the said Committee was formed and according to the resolutions passed by the Committee the work of Purohitai was limited to only the families of the members of the Committee. Thus these documents, which relate to the functioning of the Committee, were essential for the complete decision of the case. Secondly, that the petitioners have explained the delay in filing the said documents. These documents were available with the grandfather of appellant No.2 Ladu Ram Sharma, the President of the Trust. Since these documents were lying in his papers and were discovered subsequently, they were produced before the Court soon after their discovery. Thirdly, the learned Judge has failed to discuss the relevancy of these documents, which is one of the requirements of Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC. Since these documents are in fact relevant to the controversy, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the application. Fourthly, that in the written-statement the petitioners had referred to the formation of the Shamlat Committee, and to show that the Purohitai was restricted only to the families of the members of the Shamlat Committee. Lastly, that even if some delay has been caused by the petitioners, the same can be compensated by imposing a cost upon them. But in the interest of justice, the Trial Court as well as this Court should permit the petitioners to bring these documents on record.;