Civil suit for money recovery
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 21: High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has set-aside the impugned order of the Principal District Judge Jammu and directed acceptance of TV Today Network and others’ application for placing on record the list of documents along with production of original documents on the file of the civil suit.
Moreover, High Court has directed the trial court to proceed ahead with the trial of the suit on an expeditious note, given the fact that this case has remained held up for the last more than 10 years.
The order has been passed in a petition filed by TV Today Network and Others through Advocates Inderjeet Gupta and Yatin Mahajan.
The respondent Tejveer Singh Rajput filed a civil suit for money recovery before the court of the Principal District Judge, Jammu. While the issues were waiting to be framed in the case, the petitioners came forward with an application to file and place on record documents in support of the written statement.
The court of Principal District Judge, Jammu, vide its order dated 23.04.2012 dismissed the application by holding that no sufficient cause has been shown as to why the documents have been retained back at the time of filing of the written statement by TV Today Network and others and thus posted the matter for framing of issues.
After hearing counsels for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Rahul Pant with Advocate Arushi Shukla for the respondent, Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “since the court of Principal District Judge, Jammu made understanding of law of production of document along with the written statement from a deleted provision of Rule 8-A of Order VIII and, as such, was led to an erroneous understanding that the rule does not envisage a power with a court to afford time to a defendant who has missed out at the time of filing his written statement in presenting a list of documents along with the documents in support of his written statement”.
“It is by the Sub Rule 4 Rule 1-A of Order VIII that the Principal District Judge, Jammu ought to have allowed the application of the petitioners/defendants and as such having omitted to exercise his discretion”, High Court said, adding “the order impugned of the court of Principal District Judge, Jammu is bad in the eyes of law”.
While exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the Principal District Judge, Jammu and directed acceptance of the petitioners’ application for placing on record the list of documents along with production of original documents and copies thereof by the petitioner on the file of the civil suit whereupon the trial court shall proceed ahead with the trial of the suit on an expeditious note, given the fact that this case has remained held up for the last more than 10 years.
Follow our WhatsApp channel