MANJIT SINGH Vs. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On consensual basis, the Civil Misc. shall stand allowed. The person(s) indicated in the course thereof are ordered to be brought on record. Registry to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. Mrs. Jatinderjit Kaur states that she represents the legal representatives aforementioned.

(2.) In the course of his deposition on oath on 11.2.2009, the petitioner herein is recorded to have conceded, as correct, a suggestion that respondent-landlord requires the tenanted premises for personal use and occupation. The petitioner herein applied for the leave of the Court for a clarification that the aforementioned statement was a result of a typographical error. A plea, raised in the context, was that the correctness of the plea raised is apparent from a perusal of the statement made by the petitioner herein in entirety because he has throughout resisted the plea for ejectment. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondentlandlord, argues that there is no warrant for the proposition advocated on behalf of the petitioner because testimony had been recorded in open Court and the petitioner herein had duly signed it in token of its correctness after the same had been read over to him.

(3.) There is merit in the plea on behalf of the petitioner. In the affidavit (tendered into evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief), the petitioner herein had denied all the averments made by the respondent-landlord. In the course of the further cross-examination, the petitioner herein denied, as incorrect, a suggestion that tenanted premises are required by the respondentlandlord for his use and occupation. We are not concerned with the circumstances under which that suggestion came to be put to petitioner twice. However, the fact is that he is recorded to have initially conceded the suggestion as correct; while he denied that very suggestion as incorrect in a later part of his statement. If one reads his statement in entirety, the only conclusion which can be culled out therefrom is that conceding of the former suggestion came to be recorded on the basis of a typographical error. A witness who had been throughout offering plain denial of the averments made by the respondent-landlord in the pleadings and also in the affidavit (tendered in evidence in in lieu of the examination-in-chief) and had also denied that suggestion in a later part of the cross-examination, would not be expected to have conceded the foundational premise of the ejectment action is as correct.