G BULLISWAMY Vs. C ANNAPURNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred by the plaintiff against the order of the learned First Addl. District Munsif, Visakhapatnam holding that the deposition recorded in H.R.C. 77/69 on the file of the Principal District Munsif , Visakhapatnam was a deposition recorded by a competent Court in a judicial proceeding and that it can be admitted in evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby overruling the objection raised by the petitioner to its admissibility. The plaintiff challenges the order in this revision.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed the suit O.S. No. 143 of 1970 for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 3-3-1968 executed by the respondent herein in his favour. The respondent lapsed out the very same house the plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs. 35 and as the plaintiff committed default in payment of rent the respondent filed a case in H.R.C. 77/69 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, sitting as Rent Controller under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. In the said proceedings the present petitioner contended that on 19-5-1967 he paid Rupees 2,000 to the respondent in part payment of the sale consideration under the suit agreement of sale executed by the defendant in his favour. The contention of the respondent, however, in these proceedings was the said payment dated 19-5-1967 is not true and that the endorsement to that effect on the suit agreement is a forged one. In those proceedings the suit agreement was sent to a handwriting expert for his opinion. He gave an opinion and the expert was examined as P.W. 1 in those proceedings. Hews also cross-examined. No doubt he opined that the endorsement marked as Ex. A-2 is a forged one.

(3.) In the present suit, after the evidence was over, the counsel for the defendant got summoned the original deposition of the handwriting expert which was recorded by the Rent Controller. In H.R.C. 77/69. He wanted to make use of that deposition as evidence on his behalf. Thereupon the plaintiff raised an objection that the deposition cannot be admitted in evidence under the provision of Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act because the Rent Controller is not a Court, nor is it a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the Rent Controller is a court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and that the deposition was admissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act as otherwise unnecessary delay and expense would ensue.