Laxamina Devi v. Laxamuan Prasad

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21.11.2011 passed by learned Sub-Judge IV, Siwan in Title Suit No. 104 of 2003 whereby the Court below has rejected a petition for marking certain documents as exhibits.

2. The facts of the case as pleaded in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that the petitioner filed the aforesaid Title Suit seeking declaration that two mortgaged deeds dated 06.04.2003 are forged, fabricated and without consideration and not binding upon the plaintiff, who is the petitioner in the present case. She also sought for eviction of the Respondent from the suit premises and payment of arrears of rent which according to the petitioner was payable by the Respondent to her after such declaration.

3. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner and the Patna High Court CWJC No.4184 of 2012 (4) dt.24-09-2013 P2/5 Respondent are related to each other, petitioner being wife of elder brother of the Respondent. Her claim is, that she had purchased the suit premises on 01.10.1988 from one Raj Kumar Gupta. As she had a different house also, she used to reside there and had allowed the Respondent to live in the suit premises on payment of monthly rent of rupees two hundred. She felt need of some money and expressed her desire to mortgage the suit property in favour of the Respondent. Her claim is that she went to the Registry Office for execution of mortgage deed alongwith Respondent, but for some reason or the other, the Respondent got executed the sale deed by the petitioner in his favour and he executed an agreement to sale.

4. The further allegation is that Respondent did not pay any money. The Registry receipt, which was kept by the plaintiff, was allegedly snatched by the Respondent. Petitioner went to lodge F.I.R. in this regard which the Police refused to register. Further allegation is that the Respondent forcefully dispossessed her tenant from the said house.

5. The Respondent, who is defendant in the Court below, appeared and filed his written statement so as to contest the suit. Examination-in-Chief of the plaintiff was filed in the Court and she was examined by the Court. It is pleaded in the present Patna High Court CWJC No.4184 of 2012 (4) dt.24-09-2013 P3/5 application in course of Examination-in-Chief, specifically stated that she was amnesiac and her treatment was going on at several places.

6. On 04.12.2010, she was cross-examined by defendant. On 20.12.2010, she filed an application for postponing the cross-examination as she was not well. She did not recover. She again filed an application on 28.01.2011 before the Court seeking the permission that other witnesses be allowed to be deposed and the petitioner would make herself available for cross- examination once she recovered. It is stated that she also filed some medical prescriptions in support of her petition dated

28.01.2011. The Court allowed this petition dated 28.01.2011. Nearly eight months thereafter, she filed a petition on 09.09.2011 for exhibiting certain medical prescriptions and also examination of such witnesses who would be proving the documents. The Court below rejected the said application for marking those documents as exhibits as according to the Court below, the documents were not required for the purpose of determining the controversy in issue, by the impugned order dated

21.11.2011.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that these documents were essentially required to be Patna High Court CWJC No.4184 of 2012 (4) dt.24-09-2013 P4/5 exhibited for the purpose of just adjudication of the case as the mental health of the plaintiff was an important factor which the Court below was required to take into account, while deciding the case finally. He contended that the petitioner was not in proper mental shape to be cross-examined and her husband had knowledge about every fact in connection with the dispute.

8. From the events as narrated in the present application, I am of the opinion that the petition for exhibiting the medical prescriptions was lacking in bonafide, particularly as the medical prescriptions had nothing to do with the actual controversy involved in the suit between the parties. Evidently, the petitioner attempted to develop a third case as regards her improper state of mind even in course of her Examination-in-Chief as well as cross- examination. Further, The medical prescriptions which petitioner wanted to get exhibited in the Court below have not been annexed in the present application. The Court considers it to be intentional concealment of material facts.

9. I am of the opinion that filing of the petition dated

09.09.2011 for exhibiting the documents which were completely irrelevant for adjudication of the main issue itself was gross abuse of the process of the Court. The Court below has rightly rejected the said petition keeping in mind the fact that the documents were Patna High Court CWJC No.4184 of 2012 (4) dt.24-09-2013 P5/5 not relevant for the purpose of just decision of the case. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court as to how these documents could affect the decision on the dispute between the parties which is pending before the Court below.

10. I am of the considered view that the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India also lacks bonafide and has been filed for oblique purpose.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to raise any issue of jurisdictional error in the impugned order and could not demonstrate that the Court below either exercised any jurisdiction not vested in it or failed to exercise any jurisdiction vested in it; which are the relevant grounds for this Court to interfere in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. As I am of the view that the application lacks bonafide and has been instituted for oblique purpose, I impose a cost of rupees two thousand to be paid in the account of Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna, within a period of two months from today. Saif/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)