NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed being aggrieved by an order dtd. 10/7/2015 for calling one R. S. Chhari witness of the defendant who submitted his affidavit for cross-examination. In the order impugned, the trial Court has specifically mentioned that looking to the pleading and the evidence brought on record, the said person was appointed as Chief Municipal Officer in front of whom, the house was demolished. The Government has not produced any map or evidence, in their defence to arrive at the conclusion. However, the Court in its opinion, found the evidence of the said person would be relevant, therefore, directed him to remain present before the Court for cross- examination.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the application was filed under Order 8 rule 7A of the CPC, which provision has already been deleted with effect from 1/7/2002, however, the said application was not maintainable and the jurisdiction exercised by the Court on the application by passing the order impugned is in excess of the jurisdiction which is not conferred on it, therefore, interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted in this petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on a judgment of the apex Court in the case of K. K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275, has urged that the apex Court has dealt with the same issue and observed that even after deletion of the provisions of Order 18 rule 7A of IPC for further examination, cross- examination or to adduce additional evidence on the material though such provision is already deleted, the power can be exercised under Sec. 151 of the CPC. In that view of the matter if assigning the reason by the Court, the power of Sec. 151 of CPC has been exercised that do not warrant interference by this Court.