SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has assailed orders dated 2.12.2004 and 23.5.2005 passed by the Trial Court disposing of several applications. During arguments, the Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he was not pressing this petition in respect of other orders but he was pressing this petition only in respect of one order dated 2.12.2004 whereby an application under Section 151 CPC was disposed of and the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) was allowed to file the correct site plan.

(2.) It is submitted by the Counsel for petitioner that the plaintiff had filed a site plan along with the plaint and the defendant (petitioner herein) in the WS had taken the stand that this was the correct site plan. During evidence, the plaintiff was cross examined on the site plan and plaintiff admitted the site plan to be correct and dimensions to be correct and by the impugned order the Trial Court had allowed plaintiff to file another site plan on the ground that inadvertently the plaintiff had filed the first site plan with incorrect measurements. This amounted to withdrawal of admission by plaintiff.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the counsel for respondent on the ground that the order was not going to prejudice the petitioner in any manner. The petitioner was tenant in the premises and the respondent was landlord. The tenancy of the petitioner was not in dispute. Respondent no.1 had filed a site plan with the plaint in respect of entire premises whereas half of the premises was sold by respondent no.1 to one Amar Singh Rana and remaining portion was in possession of petitioner. The respondent inadvertently filed site plan in respect of the entire portion including the portion sold by him. Thus placing of correct site plan on record was necessary for proper adjudication of dispute since the dispute was only with the petitioner. The site plan vis-a-vis premises in occupation of the petitioner was rightly allowed to be placed on record. The filing of correct site plan would not amount to withdrawal of the admission. The earlier site plan was in respect of whole premises while the site plan allowed by the Trial Court was in respect of the premises under occupation of the petitioner.