- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.3, Sikar, whereby the learned judge has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order 13, Rule 4 CPC, the petitioner has approached this court.
(2.) Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that there was a judgment which was passed in his favour on 15.10.2004. While submitting his rebuttal evidence, he had pointed out that judgment. However, the respondents did not bother even to cross-examine the witnesses about the said judgment as the said judgment was an admitted document. Since the said judgment was an admitted document, on 19.2.2013 the petitioner moved an application under Order 13, Rule 4 CPC, and submitted that the said judgment and decree should be marked as document. However, by order dated 3.4.2013 the learned judge has dismissed the said application. Relying on the case of Lal Chand v. Thakur Das & Others,1990 2 RLR 355], the learned counsel has further pleaded that in case the document is an admitted one, the trial court has no other option but to mark the said document as an exhibit. Lastly, that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in moving his application under Order 13, Rule 4 CPC. Hence, the learned judge was unjustified in dismissing the application on the ground of delay.
(3.) On the other hand Mr. Anil Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that from 15.10.2004 the petitioner was well aware of the existence of this judgment which allegedly was in his favour. Yet, he did not choose to produce the said judgment, and to get it marked during the course of the trial. It is only when the trial was coming to a close, and after an inordinate delay of nine years, the petitioner filed an application for getting the said judgment marked as an exhibit. Therefore, the learned judge was certainly justified in concluding that it is merely a cleaver ploy by the petitioner for prolonging the trial. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.;