BHAGWAN SAHAI Vs. RAMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of order dated 6. 12. 99 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaipur (West) whereby he rejected the defendant's application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for production of a will in Civil Suit No. 413/87 executed by late Shri Tikaramji in favour of his daughter in law Ramadevi (plaintiff) and further to summon another will in respect of the suit shop executed by late Shri Tikaram in favour of his wife Radhadevi which was submitted in another suit for eviction filed by Radhadevi mother in law of Ramadevi against Banshidhar before Addl. Civil Judge No. 4, Jaipur City.

(2.) THE aforesaid defendant's (petitioner) application had been filed in a suit for eviction having been instituted by plaintiff Ramadevi against defendant Bhagwan Sahai on 11. 8. 87 on the ground of default in payment of rent. THE plaint was later on amended on 13. 12. 96 incorporating two new grounds. (1) reasonable and bonafide necessity of her son Vijay Singh and (2) subletting. THE defendant in his written statement filed on 3. 12. 99 however admitting the tenancy, denied the grounds of eviction. Amended written statement was filed on 6. 8. 98. After recording evidence of the plaintiff, his evidence was closed on 19. 9. 99. THE case was then fixed for recording of the evidence of defendant w. e. f. 1. 11. 99 till 3. 11. 99 but defendant failed to produce any witness on aforesaid dates, so the case was adjourned to 29. 11. 99. But on 29. 11. 99, the application for summoning gift deed and will was moved and on 30. 11. 99 another application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was moved by the defendant. Reply to both the applications was filed by the plaintiff on 3. 12. 99. On 6. 12. 99, the trial Court rejected the application for summoning the document holding the documents (sought to be produced and summoned) being irrelevant and unnecessary for deciding real controversy in the eviction suit. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) I am also in agreement with the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the documents of which the defendant sought production thereof viz. the will in question, as referred to above, is not at all relevant to decide the matter in controversy since no issued was framed as to the title in the suit and in the absence, of this, even if the petitioner is given permission to summon and produce the document, the same would not serve the purpose because as per settled law, the parties cannot be permitted to lead any evidence beyond the scope of pleadings particularly when the issue in this regard has also not been framed by the trial Court.