Satya Narain Lal And ANR v. Smt. Durgesh Nandini

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11164 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Satya Narain Lal Son of Late Bishwanath Prasad

2. Smt. Kamlawati Devi Wife of Satya Narain Lal Both Resident of Mohalla Moti Jheel, Ayodhya Prasad Lane, P.S. Town, P.O- Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... (Defendants) Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Smt. Durgesh Nandini Wife of Sri Hari Shankar Prasad Sinha resident of Mohalla Moti Jheel, Ayodhya Prasad Lane, P.S- Town, P.O- Muzaffarpur, DistrictMuzaffarpur. .... (Plaintiff) Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-07-2016 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1.

3. During the stage when the evidence of the plaintiff was going on, a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for adducing certain documents in evidence. By the impugned order the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff for adducing evidence after imposing cost.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11164 of 2014 dt.25-07-2016

4. The learned senior counsel for the defendantpetitioners has submitted that the intention of the plaintiff is only to delay the disposal of the suit which has been filed with regard to the joint family property, wherein, the defendants have their independent right, title and interest and they have never been the tenant in the suit premises. It has also been submitted that the learned court below ought not to have allowed the prayer of the plaintiff at the belated stage when the plaintiff has failed to file documents along with the plaint or even at the stage of first hearing of the suit.

5. After considering the submission and perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that the learned court below has come to the finding that the documents filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 are necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. It is also apparent from the impugned order that the petition for adducing those documents in evidence was filed by the plaintiff when her evidence was not closed. In this background, this Court does not find that the learned court below has acted with illegality or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The application is accordingly dismissed.

7. The learned court below is directed to dispose of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11164 of 2014 dt.25-07-2016 suit expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties.

(V. Nath, J) Ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 27.07.2016 Transmission Date N.A.