RAM KUMAR DIXIT Vs. DHIRENDRA SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under section 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 19.1.2015 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior, whereby the document dated 11.2.1988 produced by the present petitioner at the time of cross -examination of plaintiff Dhirendra Shukla is not taken on record. The court below opined that the said document is not admissible in evidence.

(2.) SHRI Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel submits that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance. The petitioner has already filed his written statement. During cross -examination of plaintiff Dhirendra Shukla, the present petitioner produced a document (Annexure P/7) dated 11.2.1988. An objection was raised by the plaintiff against production of the said document at the stage of crossexamination. Parties were heard on the said aspect and by impugned order the court below opined that the said document cannot be treated as admissible in evidence.

(3.) CRITICIZING this order, learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court on the earlier agreement, Annexure P/3. It is contended that the present petitioner is not a party to the said agreement. It is submitted that even if no averments are there in the pleadings of the petitioner/defendant No.7, this document can be used for the purpose of cross -examination of the plaintiff. The attention is drawn on Order 8 Rule 1A (4) CPC. In addition, it is contended that a plain reading of the document (Annexure P/7) makes it clear that it is purely an agreement and by no stretch of imagination it can be treated as relinquishment deed. Heavy reliance is placed on (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Rasiklal Maniklal (HUF) and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 1333). To bolster his aforesaid contention, Shri Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel submits that relinquishment can be only of a property and since Annexure P/3 is only an agreement for sale and no sale had actually taken place, the document (Annexure P/7) can not be treated as relinquishment deed. He submits that the order of court below runs contrary to Order 8 Rule 1A (4) CPC and the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment. He further submits that in Annexure P/7, the petitioner is not a party.