Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner-Ranchi Municipal Corporation is aggrieved of order dated 24.08.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 165 of 2006 by which application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C filed by the plaintiff has been allowed and rental agreement dated 05.04.1962 and rental receipt dated 10.02.1890-1891 have been taken on record.
(2.) Title Suit No. 165 of 2006 has been instituted for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties and he is in possession of the suit lands. Alternative relief sought by the plaintiff is, if he is not found in possession of the suit lands the same may be given to him and he be put into Khas possession thereof. The plaintiff has asserted that he is in possession of the lands comprised under M.S Plot Nos. 283, 284, 305, 306, 316, 318, 321, 322, 324 and 325 within Ward No. III of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Mouza Hindpiri, district-Ranchi. The suit lands were purchased by his great grandfather by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.07.1876, who after coming into possession over the suit lands exercised all rights and possession over the suit properties. He left behind three sons namely, Kanhai Sao, Chander Nath Sao and Kalbal Sao; Kanhai Sao and Kalbal Sao died issueless and Chander Nath Sao left behind two sons namely, Nand Kishore Sao (issueless) and Parmeshwar Sao. Finally, on death of his father-Parmeshwar Sao the plaintiff came in possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit lands on the basis of municipal khesra records. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 08.03.2006 to the defendant which was not replied by the defendant. The defendant-Ranchi Municipal Corporation contested the suit by filing a written statement disputing the claim of right, title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit lands. The defendant has asserted that in the municipal survey record of rights prepared in the year, 1929 the Ranchi Municipality has been shown as owner and the suit land has vested in it in the year 1979, and since then it is the Corporation which is the exclusive owner of the suit lands, exercising all acts and physical possession thereof. In the pending suit when the defendant had commenced its arguments, an application under VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 C.P.C was filed on 24.05.2016 by the plaintiff, for taking rental agreement dated 05.04.1962 and rental receipt dated 10.02.1890-1891 on record. This application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 24.08.2017. Aggrieved, the defendant has approached this Court.
(3.) Referring to the impugned order dated 24.08.2017 and history of case hearing at page 72 of the paper book, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the defendant s counsel had argued the matter on seven dates, an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) C.P.C was filed by the plaintiff, still such an application has been allowed and, that too, without assigning any reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in N.C. Bansal Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Another, 2018 2 SCC 347. As against the above, referring to decisions in (i) Om Prakash (Dead) Through His Legal Representatives Vs. Shanti Devi and Others,2015 4 SCC601, (ii) Mohanraj Rupchand Jain alias Chhajed Vs. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain and Others, 2007 1 MhLJ 691 and (iii) Satnam Singh Sharma Vs. Tarloki Nath Kalia and Another, 1974 AIR(P&H) 287, Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that powers under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is discretionary and even if a document is 30 years old it may or may not be taken on record. Moreover, once a document has merely been taken on record the other party can not have any objection, for it may or may not be relied upon by the trial court. Contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that there is no cause of action or even a right in the defendant to challenge the impugned order dated 24.08.2017 by which the aforesaid two documents have been taken on record.;