VENUTAI SITARAM PAWAR Vs. GULABCHAND TEJMAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point of law involved in this Revision Application is, whether, under the facts and circumstances, this Court should interfere, in the exercise of its powers under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to disturb an interlocutory order made by the lower Court during the pendency of the suit disallowing certain piece of evidence and the question arises in this way.

(2.) The present petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as Venubai for the sake of brevity) had taken the suit premises hearing Shop Nos. 8 and 9 in a building known as Gulabchand Tejmal Chawl situate at 335 Trikamdas Road, Kandivali (West), Bombay. Gulabchand Tejmal, the owner of the building, is respondent No. 1 before this Court and Mr. V.M. Kurulkar, respondent No. 2 was the Advocate who represented Venubai in the last litigation to which I would make a reference shortly.

(3.) The landlord, respondent No. 1 Gulabchand Tejmal, brought R.A.E. Suit No. 444 of 1962 against Venubai for ejectment on half-a-dozen grounds which inter alia, included default, erection of permanent structure, bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation, and breach of Clause (c) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was resisted probably on every conceivable ground. It reached the stage of hearing on 29th March, 1965. The landlord was put into the box and part of his evidence was recorded. At that stage parties put in the cannot terms compromising the claim, but the consent terms which find place at page 56 of the present compilation, were signed by the plaintiff, Gulabchand Tejmal, as well as his learned Advocate, and for the defendant-tenant only by the Advocate Mr. Kurulkar. The consent terms bore no signatures of Venubai. Pursuant to the consent terms, a decree was made on 29th March, 1965.