LOOKMAN Vs. INDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.9.2001, by which the application of the petitioner under Order 10 Rule 2 read with Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that non-petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for fixing the standard rent of the suit premises with the averments that petitioner-defendant is his tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 60/- in a shop of 400 square feet area. An application under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Act, 1950") for fixing the provisional rent was also filed and for that purpose, the non-petitioner/plaintiff produced some affidavits. Petitioner filed the aforesaid application for permission of cross-examining the deponents thereof, which has been rejected vide impugned order on the ground that such proceedings are summary in nature and cross-examination cannot be permitted. Hence this revision.

(3.) THIS Court, in Jagdish vs. Smt. Premlata Rai (7), held that a decree passed solely and wholly on the basis of affidavits filed before the Court cannot be treated as a decree based on evidence. In Radha Kishan (supra), the Court was dealing with an application that petitioner therein had been dispossessed from the land in dispute inspite of the interim order of the Court. It was observed as under :- "In view of the order of the trial Court that there was no order under Order 19 Rule 1 CPC, the affidavits filed by the parties without giving an opportunity of cross-examine the deponents, cannot be treated as evidence in the law, .................. and in that event there was no material on record worth the name before the trial Court to come to the conclusion...."