TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Benami and irrespective of the fact as to whether the same would have any implication ultimately qua the relief claimed in the suit, the petitioner essentially is entitled to lead evidence qua the said fact and once the documents sought to be summoned pertain to the said aspect, the rejection by indicating the same as irrelevant cannot be sustained. The other finding based on the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1988 also has no substance in view of the fact that the provision restricts the right of those seeking enforcement or defend an action based on same being Benami, however, the third parties are not prevented from alleging and/or proving the said aspect and, therefore, the rejection on this count also cannot be sustained. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ummon the documents/record as prayed by the petitioner in its application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Jaipur. - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2037/2020 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2020 - Mr. Justice Arun Bhansali For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia., Mr. Hemant Balani. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J.R.Patel., Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki. ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 3/2/2020 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metro, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for summoning documents/record from the Deputy Commissioner, Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Benami and order for attachment of the property has also been passed, which proceedings are relevant for disposal of the present proceedings. It was indicated that efforts were made to get the documents under Right to Information Act, 2005 and on account of non-disposal of the application, an appeal was filed which was allowed, however, the authority has passed the order rejecting the application and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Department be directed to produce the entire file pertaining to said proceedings. No reply to the application was filed, however, the same was contested. The trial court by its impugned order came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to point out the date, month and year whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions were made that once the petitioner has been accorded permission to lead rebuttal evidence, summoning of the documents under the provisions of Order XVI Rule 6 CPC cannot be restricted on any count and, therefore, also the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 appearing on caveat vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2005, several applications have been filed from time to time by the plaintiff pertaining to framing of issues, amendment of issues etc., evidence of the plaintiff was concluded on 8/3/2018 and defendant closed his evidence on 10/1/2020, whereafter, the present application has been filed. It was submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduce the same personally. The provision as such does not provide for any precondition for passing of order thereunder, however, the only apparent condition which can be deciphered is that the document must be relevant for adjudication of the dispute. The facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner has made a specific allegation in the plaint, rather the same is one of the basis for filing the suit, that the land in question has been transferred Benami in favour of respondent no.2 and that respondent no.3 was the real owner. The said allegation has been denied by respondent nos.1 to 3. It is interesting to note that the defendant nos. 2 and 3 have filed a joint written statement. The application was filed at the stage of reb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said aspect, the rejection by indicating the same as irrelevant cannot be sustained. The other finding based on the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1988 also has no substance in view of the fact that the provision restricts the right of those seeking enforcement or defend an action based on same being Benami, however, the third parties are not prevented from alleging and/or proving the said aspect and, therefore, the rejection on this count also cannot be sustained. Various submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent pertaining to delay in the suit, the fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence and that provisions of Order VII Rule 14 and Order XI CPC were not followed, apparently have no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
