SHANKER LAL Vs. MUNNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt. 17.05.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Eviction Application No. 15/07, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking permission to produce certain documents and photographs under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. J.P. Goyal for the petitioner that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are relevant to the issues involved in the suit and the Tribunal has committed an error in not permitting the same to be produced. According to him the photographs sought to be produced would show that the son of the respondent No. 1 was doing the job of catering and, therefore, bonafide requirement of the respondent -plaintiff did not exist.

(2.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. D.K. Garg for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that as per his instructions, the final arguments in the suit are already over and now the suit is fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 26.11.2013. According to him, the present application having been filed to delay the proceedings, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the same. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner had sought to produce certain documents and photographs, at the fag end of the suit, when the parties had already led the evidence. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 now even the final arguments have been concluded and the suit is fixed for the pronouncement of judgment. Under the circumstances, the petitioner, who is tenant, could not be permitted to produce the documents which would further delay the proceedings. Even otherwise, the Tribunal has rightly considered the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced and observed that the petitioner -defendant has cross -examined the witnesses of the plaintiff on all the issues including the issue with regard to the bonafide requirement and, therefore, there was no need to produce the said documents. As such the impugned order being discretionary in nature, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the same while exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.