PRAYAGNARAYAN BANSAL Vs. PAVAN CHANDIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by 5 th Additional Judge to the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena in Civil Suit No. 90- A/2018, by which the Trial Court has dismissed the applications filed under Order 16 Rule 6 and 7 and under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner / defendant claiming the vacant possession as well as for recovery of rent / mesne profits.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the disputed shop and the petitioner is the tenant. The petitioner filed his written statement and claimed that the petitioner is a tenant in the disputed shop ad-measuring 7 x 18 feet. The father of the petitioner was tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.300/- which was increased by plaintiff from time to time and at present, the rent of disputed shop is Rs.5,000/- per month. Other facts were denied by the petitioner. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and case was fixed for recording of plaintiff evident. List of the witnesses was also submitted by the petitioner. An application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Morena and the concerning Clerk of the record, Branch Manger of IDBI Bank, and Shri Jawaharlal Garg, Notary are government employees, therefore, all these witnesses be summoned through the Court. The plaintiff filed his reply and submitted that the application filed by the petitioner is baseless.