SUNEEL JAIN Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner / defendant filed this petition against the order dated 13.02.2013 whereby the Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner preferred under Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C.

(2.) RESPONDENT / plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent. In the said suit, petitioner filed his written statement. Thereafter, an application under Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C was filed. Plaintiff opposed the said application. The Court below rejected the said application on the ground that there is no justification in summoning the desired document from concerned bank situated at Surat. Criticizing this order, Shri U.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner / defendant intended to establish that son of plaintiff Rahul is running a cloth business in thename of 'Sanskriti' at Surat. The plaintiff has taken a wrong plea that his aforesaid son is in service at Surat. On the strength of this, it is contended that account opening form and other document be summoned from the concerned bank.

(3.) PRAYER is opposed by Shri Abhishek Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the respondent. By taking this Court to the statement of the account for the period 01.01.2009 to 18.04.2009, it is contended that the said account has already been closed. It is further submitted that petitioner is relying on a cheque dated 15.06.2008 which was issued prior in time than the date of filing of the suit and, therefore, there is no relevance of the said cheque. Date of filing of the suit is relevant date for the present purpose.