PRADEEP SHYAMRAO KAKIRWAR Vs. SEEMA ARUN MANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties.

(2.) By these writ petitions, the original plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 have challenged judgment and order dated

(3.) /10/2019, passed by the District Judge-5, Nagpur, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 208 of 2019, whereby appeal filed by the original defendant No.1 has been allowed and an agreement of tenancy has been impounded to pay requisite stamp duty and penalty thereon and thereafter, it is directed that the said document be exhibited for collateral purpose. It is significant that the said document is not original agreement dated 26/10/1999, but, a photo copy thereof. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7175/2019, (original plaintiff), who is respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 8245/2019, has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 277/2011, before the Small Causes Court at Nagpur, against the defendants seeking eviction and possession of the suit property. The said plaintiff has claimed in the suit that the suit property was an open plot when it was given on rent to the defendant No.1 in the month of October, 1999. Although it is not specified as to whether the suit property was given on rent by an oral agreement, in the written statement the defendant No.1 did not dispute the fact that an open plot was given on rent from the month of October, 1999. It was claimed by the defendant No.1 that a temporary structure was constructed in May, 2000, in the suit property and that defendants No.2 and 3 were inducted in partnership with defendant No.1. It is further claimed that the defendants No. 2 and 3 did not have any independent right in the suit property. The defendants No.2 and 3 also filed their written statement before the Small Causes Court. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed and when the cross-examination of the defendant No.1 was being undertaken, the aforesaid document claimed to be a tenancy agreement was tendered, which was denied by the plaintiff. It was claimed that the said document was a photo copy of the tenancy agreement dated 26/10/1999 and further that the original was with the plaintiff. It was further claimed that notice to produce the document was issued, but, the plaintiff had denied the very existence of the same. When an attempt was made for document to be exhibited, the plaintiff objected to the same by disputing the document and denying its very existence. It was further asserted on behalf of the plaintiff that the said document was not duly stamped and that it was not a registered document. The Small Causes Court accepted the objections raised on behalf of the plaintiff and rejected a request of defendant No.1 for exhibiting the said document and the matter was posted for cross-examination of defendants No.2 and 3.