ANNDA RAM Vs. SALAG RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-tenant has filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 6-1-96 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 15/94 whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this application may be stated as follows. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed the present suit for ejectment and recovery of arriers of rent in respect of an open piece of land, bearing No. 44 in Artison Colony, Masuria, Jodhpur. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant-petitioner was indicated as a tenant in the year 1975 at a monthly rent of Rupees 80.00. The ejectment of the petitioner-defendant was sought on ground of personal necessity. The plaintiff wants to construct a residential building over the above plot. The plaintiff further stated that at present he is residing in the house of Shri Ranglal Bargurjar. The defendant denied the allegations and contested the suit. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has got another plot bearing No. 45 in his possession, on which a house has already been constructed. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 7-3-95. The case was fixed for evidence of the defendant on 11-4-95. On 4-5-95, the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment. The above amendment was rejected, but, was allowed by the Honourable High Court on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000.00 vide order dated 13-9-95. It may be stated that the defendant found himself unable to pay the above cost. Hence regarding which the conditional permission was allowed to the defendant could not be carried out. By moving the application under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C., the defendant sought to produce two documents. The first document is the certified copy of the ration card of the plaintiff. According to this ration card, the plaintiff is residing at Rajendra Marg, Masuria, Jodhpur. The another document was a registered letter bearing endorsement of the postman to the effect that the plaintiff had left the above address. By proving these two documents, the defendant wants to prove that no bona fide personal necessity exists for the plaintiff inasmuch as he has changed the residence.

(3.) The learned trial Court considered the application and rejected the same on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant were neither relevant nor bonafide. He also made a strong observation that the defendant cannot participate in the proceedings of the suit till he paid cost of Rs. 2,000.00 as ordered by the Honourable High Court.