SHIVANAND Vs. CORPORATION BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order passed by the court below on I.A. No. 5 filed under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec. 151 of CPC.

(2.) Petitioner is the owner of the suit property. The present suit is filed against respondents/defendants to handover the vacant possession. The petitioner has filed the present suit by specifically contending that he has let out the suit property to the respondents/bank and there is a clause to seek enhancement of rent at the rate of 25% after every five years. The suit is filed contending that there is default in payment of rent by respondents/bank.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC calling upon defendants/bank to produce the original lease agreement dtd. 9/10/2003. The said application was objected by defendants/bank by contending that such an application is not maintainable. It was also specifically denied that original unregistered lease agreement dtd. 9/10/2003 is not in the custody of the bank. The learned Judge rejected the said application on the ground that since respondents/bank has taken a specific contention that original rent agreement is not in the custody of defendants/bank, question of issuing direction would not arise. In this background, it appears the present petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 5 under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act r/w Sec. 151 of CPC. The present petitioner sought permission to produce the photocopy of the lease agreement to corroborate and substantiate his case. The said application was strongly resisted by the respondents/bank. The learned Judge has proceeded to reject the application by holding that no grounds are made out to production of photocopy of the lease agreement dtd. 9/10/2003 as a secondary evidence. The learned Judge was of the view that Xerox document cannot be permitted to be marked, when there are no material regarding existence of original document. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge was of the view that petitioner cannot be permitted to rely the photocopy of lease agreement by way of secondary evidence.