- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dholpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 10(A) CPC, the petitioners have approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.2, Satya Prakash, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent before the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Dholpur against defendant, Natthu Khan, the father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, and the husband of petitioner No.4. During the pendency of the suit, Natthu died and his legal representatives, the petitioners were taken on record. In the suit it was pleaded that defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff. The defendant paid the rent from May, 1996 to December, 1996 at the rate of Rs.30/- through money order. The defendant did not pay the rent after December, 1996. The defendant filed written statement and denied the contents of the suit and submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC for sending the money order for specific investigation. The plaintiff filed reply to the above application and denied the contents of it. The learned Civil Judge (SD) Dholpur, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, vide its order dated 05.03.2010, rejected the application. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that since the petitioners have denied the genuineness of the receipt and other documents submitted by the plaintiff-respondent, the Court should have invoked its power under Order 26 Rule 10(A) CPC. Secondly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reasons for dismissing the said application.;