MOHINDER SINGH MATHAROO Vs. RAM SARUP JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed an eviction petition against the petitioner and respondent No. 4 under Section 14 (1Kb) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that the petitioner as tenant had sublet the premises to original respondent-No. 4-company. The said respondent No. 4 has been deleted from the array of parties in the present proceedings though it continues to be a party before the Trial Court.

(2.) At the stage when the petitioner was being cross examined, an application was filed by respondent No. 1 to 3 under Order 11 Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein-after referred to as the said Code) seeking production of certain documents relating to the Company. This application was disposed of by the order dated 16.10.2002 in terms whereof certain documents as prayed for by respondents No. 1 to 3 were directed to be produced by the petitioner. The petitioner was however not satisfied with the said order and filed a review application which was disposed of by the order dated 24.02.2003. The operative portion reads as under:

(3.) On the cross examination of the petitioner being completed, the petitioner sought re-examination on the ground that no questions had been . put in respect of these documents which in fact had been filed along with reply of the petitioner to the application of respondents No. 1 to 3 under Order 11 Rule 14 of the said Code. Such request for re-examination was declined by the order dated 14.09.2004. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred, to as the 'Evidence Act') and the said application was also disposed of stating that the matter stood already adjudicated by the order dated 14.09.2004.