ROOPKISHORE Vs. KAUSHALYADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that when a request was made to the trial Court for permission to put a question in cross -examination to opponent in respect of previous suit between them and when he wanted to confront the opponent with the original document in that context, his request was turned down by the trial Court. Shri Patni, learned counsel appearing for the opponent vehemently submitted that the suit has been filed by the mother of Ex -serviceman and petitioner is playing delaying tactices. He also made a grievance that the petitioner has not deposited arrears of rent which have gone to the tune of Rs. 31,000/ -. He also made a grievance that this revision petition has been filed for the purpose of protracting the trial of the suit. Shri Patni submitted that the opponent is admitting the said document of the previous suit between the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner should have been given opportunity of putting question to the opponent in the cross -examination in context with the said previous litigation. Normally, the Court should have permitted the petitioner to confront the opponent by showing original document. Now Shri Patni has made submission on behalf of opponent that the opponent is admitting that there was such a litigation between the parties. Therefore, in view of that for the purpose of avoiding delay Shri Patni and the opponent may follow the legal remedy by making declaration before the trial Court in that context. If that is done, there is no need of calling the original record of the previous suit which is likely to protract the trial of the present suit.

(3.) CERTIFIED copy of this order be given to the parties on payment of usual charges.