PARTHA SARATHI BANERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application arises out of the order of the learned munsif rejecting the defendants' prayer for expunging Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground of defective pleading under Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party No. 1, the Suit No. 212 of 1981 in the 4th Court of the learned munsif at Howrah against the petitioners and the opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 for their eviction from the suit premises inter alia, on the grounds of reasonable requirement and default in payment of rent since february 1979. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the disputed premises. The defendants entered appearance, and filed written statement denying and disputing the material allegations made in the plaint. Subsequently, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff, which was opposed by the defendants by filing written objection, but ultimately, the said application was allowed by the learned munsif. On 18th december, 1992 P. W. I was examined in part, and tine plaintiff in support of his case, filed a sale deed and also a copy of the mulation report of the Howrah municipal Corporation which were marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively, in the suit. The petitioners on 8th January, 1993 filed an application before the learned munsif for expunging the said Exhibits 1 and 2 inter alia, on the ground that since the plaintiff in the plaint had not stated the material fact relating to acquisition of ownership of the disputed premises, and also had not stated the nature of the deed on which he relied in deducing his title, he should not be allowed to file documents subsequently, specially at the hearing stage, in support of his case. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned munsif by the impugned Order No. 357 dated 11th February, 1993 rejected the defendants' said application inter alia upon a finding that on perusal of the plaint, it appeared that it was stated therein that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and in support of the he said contention the plaintiff had submitted those two documents which were marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 and hence, it could not be said, that the plaintiff had failed to disclose the facts on the basis of which, the said two documents had been marked as Exhibits, and/or that the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been violated, and the said order is the subject matter of challenge in the present revisional application.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that since the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 had not disclosed in the plaint the material fact of his acquiring ownership of the suit premises from his vendor by way of registered deed of sale and also the subsequent mutation of his name in the Howrah Municipal Corporation, even in a concise form, the plaint is defective as per the specific provisions of Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such, the plaintiff should not be allowed to lead documentary evidence to cure such defects and on that ground Exhibits 1 and 2 should be expunged and in support of this contention refers to a division Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Motilal Poddar vs. Judhistir Das Teor and others, 20 CWN 310.