MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. JAGDISH THANWARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition of the plaintiff arises out of order dated 25. 3. 2000 in civil suit No. 257/96 where the trial Court (ADJ No. 8, Jaipur City) allowed defendant (respondent's) application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC, for filing additional documents subject to costs of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) THE petitioner plaintiff who is an advocate of this court having let out his premises (commercial) in nature to the defendant (tenant) instituted an eviction suit against him on grounds of (a) default in payment of the rent, (b) subletting and (c) reasonable bonafide necessity of the landlord. Written statement was filed by the respondent contesting the suit. the issues were framed. Additional Issue Nos. 9 & 10 were also framed on 2. 12. 94 and 6. 11. 96 respectively. THE plaintiff adduced his evidence and closed it on 11. 2. 99. THE examination in chief of defendant who appeared as DW1 was completed on 6. 11. 98 and thereafter since the plaintiff moved certain applications the trial Court first considered the maintainability of the same, those applications. Ultimately, the plaintiff cross examined Jagdish defendant as DW 1 on as many as nine dates and closed his cross-examination on 12. 10. 99. Since, it has been plaintiff's case that the defendant had sublet the suit premises without permission of the plaintiff to one Dinesh Parwani who had unauthorisedly established business of STD/pco shop thereon, plaintiff's application for summoning the concerned file from the telephone department, as to the permission for establishing business of STD/pco shop, was allowed by the trial court subject to costs of Rs. 400/ -. THE plaintiff had then cross examined the defendant. THEreafter the defendant moved an application under Order 13,rule 2 CPC for taking on record certain documents which he was relying upon e. g. (1) partnership deed dated 16. 1. 95 and (2) originals of income tax returns of the years 1995-96 to 1998-99 produced in the income tax department, to which the plaintiff contested by filing his reply. THE trial Court after taking into consideration respective arguments of both the parties allowed defendant's application as indicated above by the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) PER contra, Shri J. P. Goyal learned counsel for the defendant respondent contended that the documents for which the defendant has sought permission by way of aforesaid application are very important documents viz. income tax returns and the partnership deed executed between him and Dinesh Parwani, so as to disprove the allegation levelled by the plaintiff for the eviction as a ground of sub-letting the suit premises and parting with possession thereof to aforenamed partner Dinesh Parwani as averred in the amended plaint. Shri Goyal then contended that for justifiable reasons the defendant could not place on record original partnership deed and Income Tax returns earlier for the purpose in question, hence it had become inevitable for him in the interest of justice to move the application under Order 13, Rule 2 CPC which was rightly allowed by the trial court which is under challenge in this revision petition.