MADAN LAL Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner purportedly under Order 11, Rule 14 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit against the petitioner; during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner deposited certain amount in the bank account of the respondent; an application was earlier filed under Order 11, Rule 14 C.P.C. for taking on record the receipt of depositing the amount for the period 01.07.2005 to 31.12.2012, which application was accepted by the trial court on 04.08.2012 and permission was granted to exhibit the said document; where after, it appears that the petitioner led his evidence between the period 13.10.2011 to 29.02.2016, however, the said receipt, which was ordered to be taken on record by order dated 04.08.2012 was not marked as exhibit and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when an application was filed seeking to mark the said receipt as exhibit, the same was rejected on 16.11.2013, against which, writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending consideration.

(3.) After the evidence was closed on 29.03.2016, present application again under Order 11, Rule 14 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. was filed on 29.03.2016, inter alia, making a prayer for marking the receipt dated 29.03.2012 as exhibit and also seeking permission to produce the eleven receipts pertaining to the period upto 31.07.2016 and for marking them as exhibits. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and the trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to lead evidence over a period of four and a half years, during which, the petitioner did not exhibit the said documents and no reason has been assigned for not doing so and, consequently, rejected the application.