NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions are directed against the impugned order dt. 01.11.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindaun City, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of finally.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Ashok Kumar filed a suit for recovery against defendant -appellants and during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC with the prayer that directions may be issued to the defendants to produce the stock register for the period from October, 1992 to 30.06.1993 granting agreement of contract and Schedule -G. The trial Court allowed the application and directed the defendants to produce the stock register. Since the directions were not complied with, therefore, plaintiff filed an application to struck off the defence and the same was allowed vide order dt. 17.04.1999. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1104/1999 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dt. 20.07.2005; the impugned order dt. 17.04.1999 was set -aside and defendants were permitted to file the stock register within a period of two weeks or on the next date fixed in the lower Court, whichever is later, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/ -. It appears that the defendants failed to produce the original stock register within a period of two weeks. Subsequently on 29.10.2007, the defendants moved an application along -with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with original stock register to take the same on record as per the direction of the High Court. The trial Court rejected the said application vide order dt. 01.11.2007, which is under challenge in both the writ petitions preferred by the defendants. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that due to fault of some officers of the appellants, the stock register could not be produced in the Court, for which the appellants have already taken disciplinary action and they have served charge sheets to three different persons. The document has now already been filed and the same is relevant. The plaintiff also shown relevancy of this document in his first application, therefore, in the interest of justice the application be allowed. So far as delay is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that they will make the payment of cost of Rs. 5000/ - as consolidated amount in both the petitions to the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents contested the writ petition and contended that way back on 20.07.2005 this Court passed a specific direction that stock register will be produced within a period of two weeks or on the next date fixed in the trial Court, whichever is later and the present application was filed after a delay of more than two years. The delay could not have been condoned by the trial Court as time limit was fixed by this Court. In these circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court is perfectly justified and no interference in it is called for.;