KEWAL KRISHNA KALRA Vs. VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel of the petitioner and Sri H.N. Sharma who has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the application for inspection, moved by the petitioner, was an innocuous one to bring on the record the property of the landlord. The justification of the submission given by the learned counsel of the petitioner is this that if the number and nature of the property held by the landlord is brought on the record then it will help the appellate court in adjudicating the point of bonafide need correctly and effectively. The learned counsel has pointed out that this court in an identical situation has held that the writ petition lies and in the interest of justice the prayer for inspection of the property made by the landlord is liable to be allowed.

(2.) SHRI H.N. Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the application in question was not a bonafide one and it was moved with a view to delay the disposal of the appeal. The learned counsel has further pointed out that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill in lacuna at appellate stage because in respect of the property, alleged said to be held by the landlord, documents of ownership and also the extent of construction could be brought on the record by filing certified copy of the property register from the Municipality Saharanpur and/or the map of the premises. In this manner what is aimed by the application is not a bona fide prayer.