Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Shri J.P. Goyal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.4.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bari whereby the application of the plaintiff petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking into record the certified copies of the plaint, written statement, order sheets of provisional determination of rent and its order dated 6.2.80 was rejected.
(3.) He argued that the petitioner wants that these documents be taken on record and does not want that these documents be exhibited in evidence. It was also argued that the delay in producing the documents on record should not be a ground for refusal of those documents to be taken on record. He in support of his arguments cited the judgment of this Court in Bhagwanti Devi Mohata Hospital v. ADJ, Rajgarh, AIR 2005 Raj. 274 and Shanti Lal & Anr. v. Kanhaiya Lal @ Krishna Chandra & Anr., AIR 2006 Raj. 126. It was argued that the pleadings to the effect that the defendants had already earlier availed of the benefit of first default and decree passed in that suit is already on record and therefore the defendants are not going to be prejudiced in any way more particularly when the plaintiff is seeking to place on record these documents at his risk by not getting them either exhibited in evidence or recalling the witnesses to prove them. It was argued that the documents which are sought to be placed on record are all certified copies of the Court proceedings and therefore they cannot be said to be ingenuine or doubtful in nature and mere placing them on record would not in any way delay the trial.;