- (1.)Being aggrieved by the order dated 12-10-2010 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class 11, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 66-A/2009, whereby the evidence adduced by the petitioner in shape of photographs and CD was rejected on the objection of the respondent that the documents submitted are inadmissible in evidence, present petition has been filed.
(2.)Short facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for eviction under Section 12(1) (a), (c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred as "Act') alleging that petitioner is tenant of the respondent and the respondent is entitled for a decree of eviction. The suit was contested by the petitioner on various grounds including on the ground that respondent is having number of alternative accommodations from where alleged requirement can be fulfilled. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings, of the parties learned Court below framed the issues and fix the case for evidence. At the stage of cross-examination of the respondent, some photographs and CD (Compact Disk) were submitted by the petitioner, which was objected by the respondent on the ground that documents and the CD submitted by the petitioner is inadmissible in evidence. Objections were upheld and documents were held inadmissible in evidence against which the present petition has been filed.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order passed by learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be quashed. Learned Counsel submits that certain photographs were filed by the petitioner before the Court below to demonstrate that respondent is having alternative accommodation, which is being leted out by the respondent and is in possession of the tenants. It is submitted that by the CD also petitioner wanted to project the same. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of the learned Court below in rejecting additional evidence adduced by the petitioner on the ground that it is in violation of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of G. Shyamala Ranjini Vs. M.S. Tamizhnathan,2008 AIR(Mad) 476, wherein Madras High Court has held that in matrimonial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, wife alleged to have abused and threatened husband on his cell phone, which was recorded in it and the audio CD sought to be exhibited and the objection raised by the wife was audio CD is fabricated one and inadmissible, it was held that audio CD marked as an exhibit with condition that when CD is played opportunity will be given to the wife for cross-examination. Learned Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case impugned order, whereby evidence adduced by the petitioner was held inadmissible in evidence, be set aside.