KAPIL GUPTA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the suit for possession and recovery of future mesne profits/damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises bearing No.A-10, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. Issues in the above said matter were framed on 26th September, 2012. Parties were granted time to file their lists of witnesses within six weeks. It was also directed on the said date that the affidavits by way of evidence would be filed by the plaintiff within the same period. The plaintiff filed the affidavit as evidence on 30th November, 2012. After that, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. No.2692/2013 in which the prayer was made that the two lease deeds filed on 23rd January, 2013 be taken on record. It was also prayed that the site plan of the premises in question which was filed separate with a list of document be also taken on record. The contention of the plaintiff in the application was that deeds would be proved by the witnesses as per law. The application was duly opposed by the defendant. However, while disposing of the application on 18th February, 2013, the Court did not notice the prayer with regard to the two lease deeds except the prayer for placing on record the site plan. It was recorded in the order that the apprehension of Mr.Katyal, learned counsel for the defendant was baseless with regard to the two lease deeds as the only prayer made in the application was for placing on record the site plan. Admittedly, in the said application, the prayer was very much there for taking the lease deeds on record. The matter was sent before the Local Commissioner for recording the evidence.

(2.) When the statement of PW-3 Mr.Anil Chawla was being recorded, the learned counsel for the defendant objected to the recording of the statement of the said witness on the ground that this witness has come to prove the lease deed dated 15th September, 2009 in respect of property No.78/3, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 who had also brought the certified copies of the said lease deed to be filed in the present case. The objection was raised, mainly, on the reason that vide order dated 18th February, 2013, this Court has only allowed the plaintiff to place on record the site plan and not the lease deeds.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff before the Local Commissioner was that the statement of PW-3 should be recorded subject to objections raised by the defendant and the evidence be not stopped and the witness be not returned back without recording his evidence. However, the learned counsel for the defendant objected to the same for recording the evidence of PW-3 as well as exhibition of the lease deed dated 15th September, 2009 as Ex.PW-2/1 in his statement as PW-3, as the said lease deed was not allowed to be placed on record. The similar objection is taken by the learned counsel for the defendant when the matter is sent back by the Local Commissioner in view of the objections raised by the defendant.