SALIL SRIVASTAVA ADVOCATE Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against an order dated 15th April 2009 by which an objection of the petitioner to receive certain documents by the respondent landlords and framing of issue has been rejected. The respondent landlords had instituted a Suit No. 11 of 2004 before the Judge Small Causes Court seeking eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises on the basis of default and for realisation of rent, damages etc. During its pendency, the landlords made an application dated 12.1.2005 bringing on record a lease deed dated 1.9.2003 alongwith an affidavit to prove it. This application remained pending and in the mean time the defence of the petitioner was struck off vide order dated 19.8.2008 which has also been affirmed in Writ Petition No.45766 of 2008 by this Court vide its order dated 9.9.2008. Thereafter the petitioner filed an objection dated 28.11.2008 which was numbered as Paper no.74C that the lease deed which was forged should not be taken on record in view of Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. and another objection being paper no.82C was filed for framing of issues. Both the objections of the petitioner have been rejected by the impugned orders. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the documents had not been filed alongwith the plaint, they could not have been filed and they are being filed only to create jurisdiction of the court as there was no averment in the plaint that there was any relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties. Much emphasis has been laid on Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. which is quoted below : "14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory." No doubt, the plaintiff is obliged to file all documents upon which he places reliance alongwith the plaint, but under sub-Rule (3) documents could also be received with the leave of the Court after the filing of the plaint. In the case at hand, though the documents were brought on record without obtaining the leave of the Court, but an application for seeking leave of the Court was also subsequently filed which has been allowed. It is not denied, as held in the impugned order that, stage of cross examination has yet not reached and the defence of the petitioner has already been struck off. The Court was justified in accepting the documents as it would further the interest of justice between the parties. The contention that the document has been filed only to create jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes, appears to be misplaced. A perusal of the plaint shows that the case set up is that the petitioner has been a tenant of the landlord respondents and which tenancy has been determined. Therefore, whether the document is taken on record or not, it would not make any difference so far as the jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Causes Court is concerned because it is a simple case of determination of the lease. It is also urged that the court below ought to have framed issues. On the facts of this case, the Court was fully justified in holding that there was no necessity of framing any issue when the defence of the petitioner has already been struck off. Even otherwise, the proceeding before a Judge, Small Causes is summary in nature where it is not imperative to frame any issue and it would be sufficient if the Court at the time of the hearing itself culls out points for determination. Therefore, this argument also is misplaced. No other point has been urged. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.