KRISHAN KUMAR SARDANA Vs. SITA RAM ADLAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision-petition is directed against the order dated 16.01.2009, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division ), Faridabad, vide which it dismissed the application for additional evidence, filed by the petitioner, during the course of execution petition.

(2.) THE petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant, in the disputed premises, comprising two shops, wherein, he has been running his clinic as Doctor since 1973. It was stated that the premises, in dispute, were let out to him by Hari Chand son of Smt. Sobai Bai, who was the owner of the same, and after her death, the same were inherited by her sons Hari Chand and Sita Ram. During her life time, Smt. Sobai Bai, filed a civil Suit No. 551 dated 21.10.1991 against one Hans Raj son of Ganesh Dass, for possession, by way of redemption, which was decreed, in respect of the disputed shops bearing nos. 1 and 3, in her favour, on deposit of mortgage amount of Rs. 2,000/- in the Court within one month from 11.4.1994 (the date of decree). It was further stated that likewise, another Civil Suit No. 552 dated 21.10.1991, for possession by way of redemption against Subash Chand son of Bodh Raj, was also decreed ex-parte, in respect of shop Nos. 2 and 4, on deposit of mortgage amount of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of decree (11.04.1994). It was further stated that in the execution petition against Hans Raj and Subash Chand, the petitioner, who claimed himself to be a tenant in shop nos. 2 and 4, filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on various grounds inter alia, that he could not be ejected from the tenanted premises, in execution of the said decrees. In that execution petition, as many as six witnesses were examined by the petitioner. Hari Chand, OW6, stated that he neither issued any receipt, nor scribed the same. The evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court below vide order dated 02.01.2009, which has been separately challenged by him. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence, which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 16.01.2009. It was stated that the order, being illegal, was liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.