MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition of the plaintiff arises out of order dated 25. 3. 2000 in civil suit No. 257/96 where the trial Court (ADJ No. 8, Jaipur City) allowed defendant (respondent's) application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC, for filing additional documents subject to costs of Rs. 500/ -.
(2.) THE petitioner plaintiff who is an advocate of this court having let out his premises (commercial) in nature to the defendant (tenant) instituted an eviction suit against him on grounds of (a) default in payment of the rent, (b) subletting and (c) reasonable bonafide necessity of the landlord. Written statement was filed by the respondent contesting the suit. the issues were framed. Additional Issue Nos. 9 & 10 were also framed on 2. 12. 94 and 6. 11. 96 respectively. THE plaintiff adduced his evidence and closed it on 11. 2. 99. THE examination in chief of defendant who appeared as DW1 was completed on 6. 11. 98 and thereafter since the plaintiff moved certain applications the trial Court first considered the maintainability of the same, those applications. Ultimately, the plaintiff cross examined Jagdish defendant as DW 1 on as many as nine dates and closed his cross-examination on 12. 10. 99. Since, it has been plaintiff's case that the defendant had sublet the suit premises without permission of the plaintiff to one Dinesh Parwani who had unauthorisedly established business of STD/pco shop thereon, plaintiff's application for summoning the concerned file from the telephone department, as to the permission for establishing business of STD/pco shop, was allowed by the trial court subject to costs of Rs. 400/ -. THE plaintiff had then cross examined the defendant. THEreafter the defendant moved an application under Order 13,rule 2 CPC for taking on record certain documents which he was relying upon e. g. (1) partnership deed dated 16. 1. 95 and (2) originals of income tax returns of the years 1995-96 to 1998-99 produced in the income tax department, to which the plaintiff contested by filing his reply. THE trial Court after taking into consideration respective arguments of both the parties allowed defendant's application as indicated above by the impugned order. Hence this revision petition. Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma petitioner appearing in person, contended inter alia that the trial Court has gravely erred in not appreciating provisions of Order 13, Rule 2, CPC in its true perspective and passed the impugned order dated 25. 3. 2000 which shows total non application of mind of facts and pleadings of the parties in pending civil suit. It was contended that requirements of Order 13, Rule 2 CPC have been clearly ignored and the trial Court has arbitrarily applied principle of liberal approach which is in different context altogether and has committed error of law. To elaborate his contention, Shri Manoj Sharma urged that he (plaintiff) never pleaded in his plaint that the defendant tenant had sublet the tenanted shop to one Shri Dinesh Parwani nor the tenant pleaded in his written statement that Dinesh Parwani was a partner in his business. His second submission was that it was defendant's case that partnership deed dt. 16. 1. 95 and income tax returns were with his advocate Shri Hari Singh and GS Fatehpuria (Tax advocate) but were misplaced. According to Shri Manoj Sharma, such averments of the defendant were and are not supported by any affidavit of aforenamed advocates. Shri Sharma has also submitted that in view of the averments in paras 1 & 2 of defendant's application dt. 8. 3. 2000 and affirming the averments in para 1 by him tantamount to filing a false affidavit in the court. According to Shri Manoj Sharma, non filing of affidavit of the aforenamed advocates in support of para 2 of the application under consideration is a sufficient circumstance to hold the defendant disentitled for the relief sought under Order 13, Rule 2 CPC. He cited the decisions in Vinod Kumar vs. Surjit Kaur (1); Mrs. Om Prabha Jain vs. Abnash Chand (2) and Gopal vs. Hirachand Shri Manoj Sharma then vociferously contended by way of his third contention that application of the defendant should have been treated as abuse of process of law and because of affirmation of a false affidavit of the defendant tenant, the trial Court ought to have initiated contempt proceeding in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Murray & Co. vs. Ashok Kumar Newatia (4), but the trial Court ignored this aspect of the matter despite the fact that aforesaid judgment's copy was personally handed over by him to the Court. Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma lastly urged as his fourth contention that the issue as to sub-letting was settled prior to 2. 12. 94 whereas the documents sought to be brought on record at belated stage having been manufactured thereafter some times in 1995-96, do not fall within parameter of Order 16, Rule 2 read with Order 13, Rule 2 CPC and therefore, the defendant failed to explain good and sufficient cause for belated production of the documents.
(3.) PER contra, Shri J. P. Goyal learned counsel for the defendant respondent contended that the documents for which the defendant has sought permission by way of aforesaid application are very important documents viz. income tax returns and the partnership deed executed between him and Dinesh Parwani, so as to disprove the allegation levelled by the plaintiff for the eviction as a ground of sub-letting the suit premises and parting with possession thereof to aforenamed partner Dinesh Parwani as averred in the amended plaint. Shri Goyal then contended that for justifiable reasons the defendant could not place on record original partnership deed and Income Tax returns earlier for the purpose in question, hence it had become inevitable for him in the interest of justice to move the application under Order 13, Rule 2 CPC which was rightly allowed by the trial court which is under challenge in this revision petition. Shri J. P. Goyal learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon the decisions in Raghunandan Saran vs. Amrit Lal (5) and Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order so also the record. ;