PRAHALLAD AGARWALLA Vs. BIJAY SHANKAR CHANDGOTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, challenge has been made to the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rairangpur in Civil Suit No.33 of 2005 allowing the application filed by the present opposite party -plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE opposite party -plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the petitioner -defendant on the basis of relationship that he was the land -lord and the defendant was the tenant. He also prayed for realisation of the arrear rent and damages. The present petitioner -defendant filed his written statement traversing the plaint allegation and also denied the relationship of land -lord and tenant between them and claimed that the suit property has been allotted to his mother -Panadevi. He constructed the suit house with the help of the plaintiff from time to time. Further, he stated that there was a Government land near the suit house where the plaintiff has constructed a room and requested the defendant to sign on the blank papers for the purpose of recording the same in the name of the defendant. The defendant put his signatures in two blank papers which were later on converted into a manufactured forged agreement by the plaintiff. By that process, the plaintiff has added Ac.0.05 dec. of land to the actual land of Panadevi and suppressing the said fact the plaintiff has filed the plaint. The defendant has also filed a counter -claim praying for a declaration that the plaintiff was not the land -lord and the defendant is not his tenant. Further, the possession of the defendant over the disputed land and home is lawful and prayed for delivery of vacant possession of the room in which the son of the plaintiff is carrying his business.

(3.) FROM the above pleas, issues were framed by the trial Court on 31.8.2007. The dispute raised in the written statement filed by the defendant were involved in Issue Nos.4, 5 and 6. The plaintiff adduced oral as well documentary evidence and closed his evidence on 4.3.2008. He filed an application under Order 18, Rule 3 of the CPC on 5.3.2008 along with a memo stating therein that he has closed his case for the present subject to the result of the petition filed under Order 18, Rule -3, CPC. After the defendant adduced his evidence, the plaintiff was to adduce rebuttal evidence on the issues as the defendant has pleaded question of adoption, etc. In this regard, the defendant filed his objection stating therein that the plaintiff has adopted dilatory practice to harass the defendant by suppressing materials before the Court and wants to mislead the Court.