SHRI ROSHAN LAL Vs. SHRI RAM NATH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three civil revisions are directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 2nd May, 1997 thereby disposing of three applications; one under order 1 Rule 10 CPC; second under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a local commissioner and the third under Section 340 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner -defendant herein.

(2.) PETITIONER -defendant is facing a suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent for his ejectment from premises No.4/47, Sarvaria Market, Delhi on the averments that the said premises was purchased by him from a certain Smt. Savitri Sarvaria, by means of a sale deed and thereafter the plaintiff -respondent had permitted the petitioner -defendant to occupy the said premises for a period of about a fortnight to enable him to shift his business to other premises in the same locality. However, as the petitioner -defendant failed to restore the possession of the aforesaid premises, the plaintiff -respondent filed the suit for possession. The defendant is contesting the suit, inter alia, on the ground that he is the tenant of premises bearing No.4/48, Sarvaria Market under late Shri Pran Nath Sarvara and after his death under Smt. Savitri Sarvaria and the plaintiff in connivance with the said landlady filed the suit for possession, based on false and frivolous averments and allegations thereby creating a confusion about the exact premises of which the petitioner -defendant is the tenant since 1972. The petitioner -defendant, Therefore, wanted that the confusion in regard to the identity of the premises which was acquired by the plaintiff -respondent and that which was under the tenancy of petitioner -defendant to be sorted out at the earliest and so he had moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10CPC for impleading Smt. Savitri Sarvaria as a co -defendant so that the entire position is made clear. To the same effect, another application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC was also filed for appointment of a local commissioner because the plaintiff -respondent had failed to file a site plan of the property till date on record. By the third application, the petitioner -defendant sought the initiation of proceedings for perjury etc against the plaintiff. All the three applications have been dismissed by the learned trial court.

(3.) SO far as the remaining two applications are concerned, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent states that he is prepared to file the exact site plan of the disputed property which was sought by the petitioner -defendant and he has also no objection, if a local commissioner visits the spot in order to ascertain the identity of the disputed premises. In view of this, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner -defendant to the above extent is justified and is hereby allowed and the respondent -plaintiff is hereby directed to file a site plan of the disputed premises within four weeks from the date of this order before the trial court with advance copy to counsel for the petitioner -defendant. On doing so, the parties will be entitled to approach the learned trial court for appointment of a local commissioner, if so advised. So far as the prayer made in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court ought to have kept the said application pending at least till such time that substantial evidence was recorded in the matter or up till such a stage when the application could appropriately be disposed of on the basis of the material produced on record. The application filed by the petitioner -defendant under Section Cr.P.C. will be deemed to have been revived on the board of the learned trial court and will be disposed of afresh at the appropriate stage after hearing the parties. These revision petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions/observations made hereinabove. Trial court record be sent back forthwith.