MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been preferred by the defendant in a suit for specific performance that was decreed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh on 24. 10. 2005. After summoning the record and hearing the counsel for both the parties as the plaintiff-respondent had put appearance in caveat, this appeal was admitted for consideration on 19. 02. 2007; and execution of the impugned decree was ordered to be stayed and status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained with certain clarifications.
(2.) THIS appeal was again processed by the office for the purpose of preparation of paper-book and a notice was exhibited per Rule 181 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 ('the Rules' hereafter); and, for the list of documents having not been filed and the initial charges having not been deposited, the matter was listed before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and then before the Registrar (Administration ). Compliance having yet not been made, the matter was ordered to be placed before the Court. When listed before the Court on 28. 07. 2008, learned counsel for the appellant moved an application (IA No. 9227/2008) in this case for dispensing with preparation of paper-book. However, learned counsel for the respondent prayed for time to state his response to the application and, at request, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, on 18. 08. 2008, learned counsel for the respondent made elaborate submissions raising objections against the prayer for dispensing with preparation of paper-book; and referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Munshi Ram vs. Prakash Chand & Anr. : 1997 (1) RLW 183 and so also the provisions as contained in Chapter XIII of the Rules. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the application as moved by the appellant could not be allowed for being vague and uncertain with mere suggestion that in the interest of justice preparation of paper-book be dispensed with but without specifying as to how dispensing with preparation of paper-book would be in the interest of justice? The emphasis of the learned counsel for the respondent has been that preparation of paper-book being the requirement of the Rules, unless a strong case is made out, the same cannot be done away with at the mere askance. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, preparation of paper-book is necessary for adequate and proper hearing of the case; and the learned counsel ventured to submit that if at all the appellant was not willing to proceed with preparation of the paper-book, the respondent would be ready to have prepared such paper-book and to place the same before the Court. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that in the recent past, when such a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC was placed before the Court in default category for the appellant having not filed the list of documents and/or having failed to deposit initial charges for the purpose of preparation of paper-book, and any application was moved for dispensing with preparation of paper-book, this Court, on being satisfied after examining the record of the case that the matter could be heard without paper-book, granted such application and preparation of paper-book by the office was ordered to be dispensed with, of course, with liberty to the appellant to produce a complete or mini paper-book, if so desired, for the purpose of facilitating proper appreciation of the relevant material. Further, upon noticing that a large number of such regular first appeals were pending only for the purpose of preparation of paper-book and hence were not coming up for hearing before the Court and were getting old and older, the office was directed to place the oldest of such first appeals (pertaining to the years 1980 to1988) before the court; and in such matters too, when any application was moved for dispensing with preparation of paper-book and upon examination of the record this Court was satisfied that the matter could be heard without paper-book, preparation of paper-book was ordered to be dispensed with and the appeal was ordered to be placed for hearing. It has to be acknowledged that in such matters, whenever an application for dispensing with preparation of paper-book was moved and the learned counsel for the opposite party, if represented, was called upon to state his response to the application, almost invariably, the counsel stated no objection in dispensing with preparation of paper-book.
(3.) THOUGH the submissions as made in this case on behalf of the respondent in opposition to the same ordinary and rather innocuous prayer of dispensing with preparation of paper-book are difficult to be accepted; and the questions on want of particulars of interest of justice as raised by the learned counsel for the respondent are required to be rejected as being of rather over-zealous but unnecessary arguments; and, as this Court felt satisfied after examining the record that the matter could adequately be heard without such paper-book, the application would have simply been granted while dispensing with preparation of paper-book as done in the past in a large number of cases but, for the arguments as advanced on behalf of the respondent, and for the matter being of recurrence before the Court, it was considered appropriate to have a close and deeper look at the issue of preparation of paper-book for the purpose of hearing of a civil first appeal. And, after going through the decision of the Honble Single Judge of this Court in Munshi Ram's case as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent and the other decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mansukhram Chela of Bhikaram Maharaj vs. Hemaram Chela of Shri Jasuram: 1963 RLW 615 as referred in the said decision of Munshi Ram; and after taking into comprehension the scheme and object of the relevant provisions of the Rules, the proposition of mandatory requirement of preparation of paper-book in civil first appeal having the valuation exceeding Rs. 20,000/- even when the same is to be heard by a Judge sitting singly, as propounded in Munshi Ram's case does not appear to be supported by the Rules and stands rather contradistinguished by the Division Bench decision in Mansukhrams case (supra ). In Munshi Ram's case (supra), the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court has pointed out that the matter was taken up for consideration of a preliminary question relating to preparation of paper-book, and upon the directions of the Court, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) submitted his report on 27. 11. 1996 and stated that in S. B. Civil First Appeal cases, practice of preparation of paper-book had never been followed and the said decision in Mansukhram Chela of Bhikaram Maharaj was brought to the notice of the Court. The Hon'ble Single Judge, however, was of opinion that the matters were required to be dealt with according to the statutory rules and not according to the practice developed by the office; and observed that in view of Chapter XIII of the Rules, the practice of non-preparation of paper-books in appeals having valuation beyond Rs. 20,000/- was required to be disapproved. ;