GANESH SINGH Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision has been filed against the order dated 14. 3. 2002, by which the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code"), observing that copy of the judgment and order dated 18. 1. 2002, in the suit between the non-petitioner and some other tenant, wherein it had been held that the need of the non-petitioner was not bonafide, is not admissible in evidence.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the non-petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner-defendant on various grounds including the ground of his bonafide need. Non-petitioner/plaintiff had also field a suit against some other tenant on the same ground, including the ground of bonafide need, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18. 1. 2000, holding that the non-petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove the requirement of bonafide need. Petitioner filed an application to take the copy of that judgment dated 18. 11. 2000 on record submitting that such a judgment, though not inter-party, was admissible in evidence, in view of the provisions of Section 13 read with Sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, "the Act" ). THE said application has been rejected. Hence, this revision.

(3.) IN Anil Behari Ghosh vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi (5), the Supreme Court considered a case: whether previous judgment of a criminal Court, convicting the son of the testator for murder, can have relevancy in the subsequent proceedings for revocation of grant of probate under the provisions of Section 43 of the Act. the Court held that where, in a proceeding for revocation of grant of probate under Section 263 of the INdian Succession act, the question is: whether the son of the testator murdered him, it cannot be assumed, on the basis of a previous judgment of a criminal court convicting the son for murder of his father and sentencing him for the same that the son was the murderer of the testator, for the reason that the judgment of the criminal court is relevant only to show that there was such a trial resulting in the conviction and sentence of the son, but it cannot be the evidence of the fact that the son was the murderer of the testator and that question is to be decided on evidence in the pending proceedings.