- (1.) BY way of instant writ petition, the defendant -petitioner has challenged the composite order dt. 04/02/2014 whereby the trial court has dismissed two applications of the defendant -petitioner, one under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC for taking documents on record and the other for summoning cash book and ledger from the plaintiff -respondent.
(2.) LD . counsel for the defendant -petitioner contended that the documents sought to be taken on record by way of said two applications under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC were necessary to resolve the controversy involved in the suit. She further contended that summoning of cash book, ledger and other documents from the plaintiff -respondent was also essential for the just and proper decision of the suit.
(3.) LD . counsel for the plaintiff -respondent supported the impugned order and contended that the documents were wholly irrelevant for the just decision of the suit and the application were preferred merely to delay the progress in the suit which was filed for recovery on the basis of a promissory note. He further supported the impugned order declining to summon record from the plaintiff -respondent. Heard rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. In so far as the applications for taking documents on record is concerned, the ld. trial court has assessed and evaluated all the documents annexed therewith and concluded that the documents were wholly irrelevant for the purpose of resolving the controversy in the suit. The ld. trial court has observed that when the plaintiff -respondent has admitted himself to be a partner of the firm in his evidence, the license deed sought to be taken on record pales into insignificance and as the slips were neither signed by the plaintiff -respondent or his accountant, the ld. trial court considered them of doubtful character and was of the opinion that the suit for recovery was not by the firm but in individual capacity and hence the same were insignificant for the decision of the suit. The trial court further relying on the ratio laid down in the decision of this Court in the case of Pukh Raj Vs. Judge, Rent Tribunal and ors., 2008 3 WLC(Raj) 461 concluded that the documents were wholly irrelevant coupled with the fact that no explanation for the delay was forwarded by the defendant -petitioner, dismissed both the applications of the defendant -petitioner.;