R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dt. 12.1.2011, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD), No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has denied the petitioner an opportunity to cross -examine DW -1 Suresh Kumar Beniwal with regard to four documents submitted by the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2, UIT, Bharatpur invited applications by 30.1.1998 for allotment of plots in a commercial scheme. The petitioner submitted his application on 29.1.1998. The UIT allotted plot No. 48, Sector -4, Scheme No. 2, Transport Nagar, Bharatpur to the petitioner through a lottery held on 28.3.1998. The petitioner made the complete payment against the allotment. The UIT handed over the possession of the plot to the petitioner and executed a registered lease deed on 16.2.2001. However, on 29.4.2005, the UIT issues a notice to the petitioner to show cause for not cancelling the allotment of the said plot to the petitioner as allegedly petitioner was found ineligible for allotment of the plot by a committee constituted by the Government. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner obtained four documents from the UIT, under the RTI Act. On 12.1.2011, the learned trial Court denied the petitioner an opportunity to cross -examine Suresh Kumar Beniwal (D.W.1) the OIC, with respect to these four documents. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(2.) MR . Alok Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that Mr. Suresh Kumar Beniwal was the OIC on behalf of the UIT, Bharatpur. In his capacity as the OIC, he was supposed to be aware of the facts of the case and also aware of the record of the case. During the course of his deposition, Mr. Beniwal was confronted with four documents that the petitioner had gotten under the RTI. However, the learned Judge has denied the petitioner an opportunity to confront the witness with these four documents on the ground that the witness is unconcerned and unrelated to these documents. Secondly, according to Section 138 of the Evidence Act, the cross -examination need not be related only to the examination -in -chief, and the other facts can be brought to the notice of the witness. Therefore, the petitioner should have been given the right to confront the witness with these four documents. Thirdly, these documents are related to the issued involved in the case. Under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, these documents are relevant evidence. Therefore, an opportunity of cross -examination has been denied to the petitioner without any rhyme or reason. Lastly, that the party has a right to prove his case even from opponent's witness and right to cross -examine from opponent's witness cannot be denied to the party. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of C.P. Joshi v. Kalyan Singh Chouhan & Ors.,, 2011 (4) WLC 110. On the other hand, Mr. Dharmendra Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, UIT, Bharatpur, has contended that none of these documents are relevant to the controversy in issue. Moreover, as these documents relate to the minutes of meeting to which the witness was not part of. The learned Magistrate was certainly justified in denying the petitioner an opportunity to confront the witness with these documents. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.;