SURESH KUMAR Vs. BALDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 4th January, 1984 of an Additional Rent Controller rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 25th August 1983 made under Order XVII Rule 1 read with Order XVII Rules 3, 17 & 17A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for recalling a witness to prove certain documents.

(2.) The facts germane to the decision of this revision petition succinctly are that the petitioner filed an application for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises in question viz., portion of property No. C-11/ 146, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which is a Govt. built property. His contention was that he was a co-owner/landlord of the premises in question being one of the legal representatives of his mother, Smt. Parvati who was the owner of the said property under a conveyance and a lease-deed executed by the President of India in her favour. He filed photostat copies of the certified copies of the lease-deed and the conveyance deed alongwith the application. These documents were marked 'B' & 'C' when he tendered the same in evidence during the course of his own examination as AW 4. He also examined Shri Jang Bahadur Singh, a U.D.C. in the office of the Land & Development Office, as AW 2 to prove that the property in question belonged to Smt. Parvati and that an application for mutation had been made by her legal heirs which was pending at that time. This witness was examined on 20th October 1982. It would, however, appear that the photostat copies marked 'B' & 'C' were somehow not put to this witness although he was generally examined with respect to the title of Smt. Parvati to the property in question. During cross-examination the learned counsel for the respondent elicited same information from him which was based on a couple of letters. A direction was made by the Court to the witness to file photostat copies of those letters and the same were then to be exhibited as RWx 1 and RWx 2. However, it would appear that the witness went away without furnishing photostat copies of the two documents. When the petitioner stepped into witness-box himself, he deposed that he had received a communication dated 1st March 1983 from the Land & Development Office stating that the mutation of succession had since been sanctioned in their favour and he filed a photostat copy thereof which was marked 'A'. It was allowed to be tendered subject to payment of costs but the costs were not accepted by learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) After the close of evidence by both the parties, the matter came up for hearing of arguments before the trial Court. Wisdom then downed on the petitioner that he had not filed the original documents and the photostat copies filed by him were not admissible as secondary evidence. So,realising this lapse on his part he moved the afore said application for recalling AW 2 to prove the documents marked 'A', 'B', & 'C' and also to supply photostat copies of the documents which were to be exhibited as RWx 1 and RWx 2.