MEENA Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.24003 -CII of 2008 An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants for placing on record the documents from which it was evident, as stated, that the deceased was paying Rs.1000/ - as installment of loan to the bank and also there was one rent agreement. The documents Annexure A1 to A6 were, therefore, sought to be read in evidence.

(2.) THE documents Annexure A1 to A5 do not make it clear that the amount mentioned was an installment towards any loan because there is no proof of sanction of loan in favour of the deceased and about its availing. Also in Annexure A5, the amount was Rs.800/ - on 27.6.2002 whereas in the same month earlier on 3.6.2002, the amount shown was Rs.3000/ -. In April 2002, it was Rs.1000/ - and in January and March 2002 also, it was Rs.1000/ -. Bank account number was given.

(3.) THE documents are thus not necessary for effective adjudication of the matter, especially because nothing at all can be proved from those that the deceased was availing any loan facility and was paying installments thereof. The documents are not with regard to fixed amount. Similarly the rent agreement for paying Rs.300/ - as rent was not only in the name of the deceased but his father was also one of the tenants in the shop. It, therefore, cannot be said from it that the deceased was himself running a shop. It may also not be out of place to mention here that the claimants had alleged before the Tribunal that Vijay Kumar was running a flour mill and rice mill and was doing other work also. In such event, he should have been a rich man.