Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant, challenging the order dt. 06.08.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court") in Appeal No. 1/2007, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for production of additional document namely patta in respect of the suit premises issued by the U.I.T. Kota under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No. 2 -plaintiff had filed the suit for eviction on various grounds, which was contested by the petitioner -defendant contending inter alia that the petitioner was the owner, and not the tenant of the suit premises. In the said suit, one of the issues framed by the trial Court was the issue No. 3 which reads as under: -
(2.) THE said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide the judgment & decree dt. 05.10.2006. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the petitioner had preferred the appeal being No. 1/2007 before the appellate Court, which is pending for final disposal. In the said appeal, the petitioner had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 for producing on record the 'patta' dt. 20.08.2009 issued by the U.I.T. Kota in favour of the petitioner. The said application was resisted by the respondent -plaintiff. The appellate Court vide the impugned order, rejected the said application, against which the present petition has been filed. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Kumar Kasliwal for the petitioner that the issuance of 'patta' by U.I.T. in favour of the petitioner, fortified the stand of the petitioner that he was the (sic) of the suit premises. According to him, the said document being very relevant and having come to the possession of the petitioner after the passing of the decree, the same is required to be taken on record in the appeal. However, the learned counsel Mr. Naseemuddin Quazi for the respondent No. 2 -plaintiff submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to produce the said 'patta' on record, it would change the very nature of the appeal. According to him, the petitioner was required to file separate proceedings in respect of the said 'patta', and can not seek amendment at the appellate stage.
(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the appellate Court, it appears that the patta dt. 20.08.2009 sought to be produced by the petitioner, was issued by the U.I.T. Kota after the passing of the decree by the trial Court. Since the issue was already framed by the trial Court as to whether the petitioner -defendant had denied the title of the respondent -plaintiff or not, the document in question namely the patta would be very relevant document to decide the controversy between the parties. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that the reserving right of the respondent -plaintiff to rebut the evidence of the petitioner on the said 'patta', the same is required to be brought on record. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is set -aside. The petitioner -defendant is directed to produce on record the document namely registered patta issued by the U.I.T. Kota in favour of the petitioner, and the respondent -plaintiff shall have right to lead evidence in rebuttal thereof. The petition stands allowed accordingly.;