MANJU Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/defendants No. 1 and 2 filed this petition assailing the order dated 29.10.2013 passed in Case No. 16A/2013 C.S. (Annexure P/1).

(2.) PLAINTIFF /respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent. The court below after completion of pleadings framed the issues. The plaintiff led his evidence and exhibited 12 documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/12. Thereafter, defendants started their evidence. During cross -examination of defendant No. 1, a registration certificate of the shop/betel shop was produced and was marked as Ex. P/13. At this stage, the petitioners filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is prayed that the registration certificate produced during cross -examination of defendant No. 1 is a forged document, which was deliberately not produced by the plaintiff while leading evidence. It is urged that another document, which is produced during cross -examination of defendant is a photo. Thus, in the light of this subsequent event and production of certificate and photograph aforesaid, it is necessary to recall the witnesses of plaintiff in order to permit the defendants to cross -examine them. Said application was opposed by filing reply dated 28.10.2013.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri P.C. Chandil, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order. By placing reliance on : AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 377 (Smt. Surinder Kaur v. Karanbir Singh and another) and : 2007(4) MPLJ 101 (Devendra Kumar Jain vs. Manoharlal), it is urged that power under Order 18 R. 17 can be exercised suo motu by the court. This cannot be done on an application filed by the party. On merits, he supported the order passed by the court below.