SHIV KUMAR Vs. S K DUTTA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that a SCC Suit No. 54/2010 is pending adjudication since December 2010. The defendant presented his written statement in July, 2011 and additional written statement on 13.8.2015 because after filing of the first written statement by the defendant, the plaintiffs sought an amendment by way of moving an application on 29.1.2014. Such amendment was allowed adding paragraph no. 18A in the pleadings of the plaint. Such paragraph averred that the property, in question, was initially a residential house which was demolished in 1985 and thereafter a plan for commercial/shop was sanctioned thereon by MDDA vide sanction letter MAP No. 603 of 1985 on 13.9.1985 and the present shops were constructed and fresh assessment was done by the municipal authority on 1.10.1987 and as such, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to it.

(2.) Issues were formulated and the plaintiffs presented their affidavits in the form of chief examination and at the time of cross-examination, the defendant presented certain documents which he could procure under the Right to Information Act from MDDA and all those documents reveal the correspondence and the exchange of papers including the affidavit moved by Mr. R.M. Dutta before such authority, the report of the Junior Engineer and the sanction plan of the property, in question. These papers were admitted on record on 27.1.2016. Soon after the plaintiffs moved a new amendment application on 8.3.2016. This amendment application of the plaintiffs has been allowed by the impugned order for the reason that in the opinion of the Court below, such amendment was warranted in order to clarify the factual aspect in the light of documents filed by the defendant/tenant, as indicated above.

(3.) As regards filing of documents by the defendant before commencement of his cross-examination is concerned, it would be relevant to point out the provision of Order 8 Rule 1-A(4) of the CPC. Such provision envisages that nothing in this rule shall apply to documents (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.