SATNAM SINGH Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal learned Counsel for the revisionist. This is a Civil Revision filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2011 passed in Rent Control Case No. 1 of 2009, Rakesh Kumar v. Satnam Singh by the Prescribed Authority/A.C.J.M. Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar. This revision has been filed by the defendant. By the order dated 18.2.2011 the application 26-A filed by the defendant-revisionist has been rejected. The application made by the revisionist was for summoning the plaintiff-respondent for being cross-examined on the affidavit filed by the plaintiff-respondent in evidence. The Court below has rejected the application on two grounds. The first is that it has not been stated in the application 26-A by the revisionist-defendant as to what is the contradiction in the affidavit in evidence filed by the plaintiff-respondent. Secondly it has recorded that in case the averments of the affidavit in evidence filed by the plaintiff-respondent is denied by the defendant-revisionist he can always file an affidavit in rebuttal or denial.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ashfaq Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge), Rampur, 1987 AllLJ 1452 and submits that the provisions of Order XIX, Rule 2, CPC are very clear inasmuch as upon a release application evidence may be given by affidavit and the Court may at the instance of either party order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. There is no dispute regarding the power of the Court to order a deponent to present himself for cross-examination however in the case of Ashfaq Ahmad the Court clearly found that the party had questioned the claim made by the opposite party regarding share in other two buildings named in the objection on the basis of oral gift when to meet the claim of the party the opposite party had taken a stand that the aforesaid house were orally given to someone else and opposite party No. 2 had no interest in those two houses. It was this denial made in the pleadings on affidavit which was considered by the Court in Ashfaq Ahmad's case wherein it was held that the application for cross-examination of the deponent was wrongly rejected.

(3.) Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd., 2006 6 SCC 94 and relies in paragraph 79 therein. Paragraph 79 is quoted herein--