AHMEDDEEN Vs. PAMAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nimbahera dt. 8. 11. 1989 whereby he has rejected the application.

(2.) THE petitioner's case in brief is that the plaintiff-non petitioner filed a suit on 4. 4. 80 for eviction alleging that the suit shop is required for 'dire necessity' (Sakht Jarurat) for his son Ramchandra. THE defendant-petitioner denied the allegation. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and after evidence the case was fixed for final arguments. THE defendant moved an application for leave to produce certain documents but on the objection of the plaintiff the same was rejected on 7. 2. 1989. Again on 22. 8. 1989 an application for taking 12 documents was moved, but the learned trial court dismissed the application on 25. 4. 89 and observed that documents were available with him before filing the suit. THE defendant filed an application under 0. 14 R. 5 on 30. 5. 1989 for amendment of issue which was ultimately withdrawn but during the pendency of the application, on 25. 7. 1987, the plaintiff-non-petitioner moved an application under 0. 6 Rule 17 proving that in clause 3 of the plaint before the word 'dire necessity' 'the words 'reasonable and bonafide necessity' be inserted. On 26. 8. 1989, this amendment was allowed on cost. THE defendant-petitioner filed some documents on 7. 8. 1989 and 22. 8. 1989 and thereafter written statement but the trial court rejected the prayer regarding taking of documents on record as they were rejected earlier considering them not relevant but at the same time observed in the order dated 8. 11. 1989 that they can be considered only on an application filed under order 13 Rules 1 & 2 at the proper stage.