SHEETAL DAS Vs. GORDHAN MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2014 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), East, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order 13, Rule 10 CPC, the petitioner has approached this court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Gordhan Mehta, the respondent-plaintiff, had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of the bona fide and reasonable necessity of his son, Surendra Mehta. In his plaint he has pleaded that his son, who is running his business in a rented premises, needs the premises which has been rented out to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted written statement wherein he had claimed that Surendra Mahta does not need the property in dispute as he is already having a firm at Magodi Walon ki Bagichi, Brahampuri, Jaipur, and has a big factory with a staff of about 40-50 workers. During the course of the trial, Mr. Surendra Mehta was examined as PW.2. However, during his cross-examination, he totally denied the fact that he had anything to do with M/s Shree Arihant Exports. According to the petitioner, after the testimony of Mr. Surendra Mehta was over, he could lay his hands on an application for registration of M/s Shree Arihant Exports, which clearly shows that Mr. Surendra Mehta happened to be the proprietor thereof. Moreover, according to the petitioner he moved an application under the RTI Act before the Sales Tax Department for getting a certified copy of the registration certificate of the said firm as well as the details of the sales tax paid by the said firm for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. However, by letter dated 4.4.2014 the Sales Tax Department has declined to give copies of the required documents, on the ground that M/s Shree Arihant Exports has refused to supply the said information. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order 13, Rule 10 CPC for summoning of the documents mentioned above from the Sales Tax Department. But, by order dated 5.5.2014 the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application. Therefore, the present petition before this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudesh Bansal, has raised the following contentions before this court : firstly, that neither the copy of the registration certificate, nor the copy of the sales tax paid by M/s. Shree Arihant Exports are available with the petitioner. However, these documents are essential in order to prove to show that Mr. Surendra Mehta (PW.2) has made a mis-statement of fact in his cross-examination when he has claimed that he has no connection with M/s Shree Arihant Exports. Therefore, these documents would help in attacking the credibility of the witness. Secondly, that the learned Magistrate is unjustified in claiming that the petitioner did not narrate the fact with regard to M/s Shree Arihant Exports in his written statement. In fact, in para 5 of the written statement a specific averment has been made with regard to Mr. Surendra Mehta's running a firm in Brahampuri, and owning a factory which employs about 40-50 labourers. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is clearly untenable.