BAHADAR LAL Vs. ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During recording of statement of Bahadar Lal DW1 in a suit for seeking decree of permanent injunction inter-alia restraining the defendants from replacing the shutter in the shop owned by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, the lower court vide its order dated 28.4.2014 had called upon the witness to produce partnership deed, income tax and sale tax returns for further cross examination of the witness. Bahadar Lal DW1 and his father Kali Ram had allegedly taken the shop on rent from one Hari Dass, great grandfather of the plaintiff for doing the business of machinery parts under the name and style of M/s Gupta Machinery Store. After the death of Hari Dass, the shop in dispute has allegedly fallen to the share of plaintiff respondent No.1 (herein) in a family settlement. Tenant Bahadar Lal and Satish Kumar - defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) are brothers whereas defendant No.3 (Respondent No.3 herein) is son of respondent defendant No.2.

(2.) Merely because the witness has been called upon to produce few documents for his further cross examination, should not have tremorized the petitioner-tenant Bahadar Lal who is being examined as his own witness before the lower court. Since the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the present petitioner and respondent Arun Kumar (plaintiff in the suit) with some allied questions is involved, production of income tax and sales tax returns with partnership deed will be helpful in effective and wholesome adjudication of the matter in controversy. Though Counsel for the petitioner - defendant No.2 has placed reliance on Rishi Pal s/o Hukam Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2011(8) RCR (Crl.) 1159 (Allahabad) and Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 828 (SC) , but since the facts of the case in hand are entirely different, with due deference to the law laid down in these authorities, no help is available to the petitioner. In fact, neither there is any intention nor attempt to put questions to petitioner Bahadar Lal (DW1) assailing his character so as to shake his credit. In the given facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. The same is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.