- (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, District Jaipur, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC submitted by the petitioners has been dismissed, and the learned Magistrate has refused to take on record certain documents, submitted by the petitioners.
(2.) Mr. Kapil Bardhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs has vehemently contended that in the plaint, the petitioners had revealed a family tree. On the basis of the family tree, they had claimed that the property in dispute was partitioned; they were in the possession of the property which fell in their share. However, in the written statement submitted by them, the respondents-defendants have questioned the veracity of the family pedigree. They have shown a different pedigree. Since, there was a dispute with regard to the actual family tree of the family, an issue has been framed by the learned trial court. The documents that the petitioners wanted to bring on record reveal the family pedigree as stated by the petitioners in the plaint. Since these documents would throw light upon the issue of true family pedigree, these documents were relevant. Hence, they should have been taken on record.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that while rejecting the application filed by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has clearly observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to confront the defendants' witnesses with these documents under Order 7, Rule 14(4) CPC. Thus, at that stage, these documents can be taken on record. But as the plaintiffs' evidence is about to come to an end, the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.;