MUKESH CHAURASIA Vs. SHRI BHAGWAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel. This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant against the order dated 20.4.98 passed by Shri B.P. Sharma, VII Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, whereby an application of the petitioner for obtaining the expert opinion has been rejected.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for eviction on various grounds contained in section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and one of them was Sec. 12(1)(a) of the said Act. The case of the defendant was that no receipt was ever given, though rent has been paid regularly. The plaintiff submitted four counter foils, which according to the petitioner were forged. The case was fixed for hearing of the matter on the application filed under section 13(2) of the Act and at that stage the petitioner moved an application for obtaining expert opinion which has been rejected. The learned counsel further contends that the matter under section 13(2) of the Act has finally been decided and the petitioner pressed the application for obtaining the expert opinion with respect to the merits of the case as the counter foil were forged and they will affect the merit. The learned Court below in rejecting the application committed grave error which has prejudiced the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER giving my anxious considerations to the matter, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice demanded that if the defendant claims to obtain expert opinion, it was the duty of the Court to have permitted the defendant to obtain the expert opinion but as no such mention was made in the list filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC the defendant should have been saddled with cost. If the defendant is not permitted to obtain expert opinion, it will certainly cause injustice to him.